This week we will post links sent by readers with more information on Maurice Strong and his impact on formulating the fake science and erroneous, purposeful deceit behind the green movement. Many who have not been aware of what is behind this, as well as one world order, the movement against the Christian religions, etc.. will find the historical data on how we got here very enlightening. http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html

WHO IS MAURICE STRONG?

The adventures of Maurice Strong & Co. illustrate the fact that nowadays you don’t have to be a household name to wield

global power.

By Ronald Bailey Published in The National Review September 1, 1997

Mr. Bailey is a freelance journalist and television producer in Washington, D.C. He is author of Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse (St. Martin’s) and The True State of the Planet (Free Press).

“The survival of civilization in something like its present form might depend significantly on the efforts of a single man,” declared The New Yorker. The New York Times hailed that man as the “Custodian of the Planet.” He is perpetually on the short list of candidates for Secretary General of the United Nations.

This lofty eminence? Maurice Strong, of course. Never heard of him? Well, you should have. Militia members are famouslyworried that black helicopters are practicing maneuvers with blue-helmeted UN troops in a plot to take over America. But the actual peril is more subtle. A small cadre of obscure international bureaucrats are hard at work devising a system of “global governance” that is slowly gaining control over ordinary Americans’ lives. Maurice

Strong, a 68-year-old Canadian, is the “indispensable man” at the center of this creeping UN power grab.

Not that Mr. Strong looks particularly indispensable. Indeed, he exudes a kind of negative charisma. He is a grey, short, soft-voiced man with a salt-and-pepper toothbrush mustache who wouldn’t rate a second glance if you passed him on the street. Yet his remarkable career has led him from boyhood poverty in Manitoba to the highest councils of international government.

Among the hats he currently wears are: Senior Advisor to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan; Senior Advisor to World Bank President James Wolfensohn; Chairman of the Earth Council; Chairman of the World Resources Institute; Co-Chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum; member of Toyota’s International Advisory Board. As advisor to Kofi Annan, he is overseeing the new UN reforms.

Yet his most prominent and influential role to date was as Secretary General of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development — the so-called Earth Summit — held in Rio de Janeiro, which gave a significant push to global economic and environmental regulation.

“He’s dangerous because he’s a much smarter and shrewder man [than many in the UN system],” comments Charles Lichenstein, deputy ambassador to the UN under President Reagan. “I think he is a very dangerous ideologue, way over to the Left.”

“This guy is kind of the global Ira Magaziner,” says Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign-policy studies at the Cato Institute. “If he is whispering in Kofi Annan’s ear this is no good at all.”

Strong attracts such mystified suspicion because he is difficult to pin down. He told Maclean’s in 1976 that he was “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” And his career combines oil deals with the likes of Adnan Khashoggi with links to the environmentalist Left. He is in fact one of a new political breed: the bi-sectoral entrepreneur who uses business success for leverage in politics, and vice versa.

Strong started in the oil business in the 1950s. He took over and turned around some small ailing energy companies in the 1960s, and he was president of a major holding company — the Power Corporation of Canada — by the age of 35. This was success by any standard. Yet on more than one occasion (including once in Who’s Who), Strong has been caught exaggerating. He claimed, for instance, to have forfeited a $200,000 salary when he left Power. The real figure, said a company officer, was $35,000. Why this myth-making? Well, a CEO is just a CEO — but a whiz-kid is a potential cabinet officer.

And it is in politics that Strong’s talents really shine. He is the Michelangelo of networking. He early made friends in high places in Canada’s Liberal Party — including Paul Martin Sr., Canada’s external-affairs minister in the Sixties — and kept them as business partners in oil and real-estate ventures. He cultivated bright well-connected young people — like Paul Martin Jr., Canada’s present finance minister and the smart money’s bet to succeed Jean Chretien as prime minister — and salted them throughout his various political and business networks to form a virtual private intelligence service. And he always seemed to know what the next political trend would be — foreign aid, Canadian economic nationalism, environmentalism.

In 1966, by now a Liberal favorite, Strong became head of the Canadian International Development Agency and thus was launched internationally. Impressed by his work at CIDA, UN Secretary General U Thant asked him to organize what became the first Earth Summit — the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972. The next year, Strong became first director of the new UN Environment Program, created as a result of Stockholm. And in 1975, he was invited back to Canada to run the semi-national Petro-Canada, created by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in the wake of OPEC’s oil shocks.

Petro-Canada was a sop to Canada’s anti-American Left, then denouncing American ownership of the country’s oil companies. Strong talked a good economic-nationalist game — but he himself was a major reason why Canada’s oil companies were U.S.-owned. Ten years before, while at Power Corporation, he had enabled Shell to take over the only remaining all-Canadian oil company by throwing a controlling block of shares in its direction. As Maclean’s wrote, he now returned “amid fanfares” to rectify this.

After a couple of years, Strong left Petro-Canada for various business deals, including one with Adnan Khashoggi through which he ended up owning the 200,000-acre Baca ranch in Colorado, now a “New Age” center run by his wife, Hanne. (Among the seekers at Baca are Zen and Tibetan Buddhist monks, a breakaway order of Carmelite nuns, and followers of a Hindu guru called Babaji.) Not for long the joys of contemplation, however. In 1985, he was back as executive coordinator of the UN Office for Emergency Operations in Africa, in charge of running the $3.5-billion famine-relief effort in Somalia and Ethiopia. And in 1989, he was appointed Secretary General of the Earth Summit — shortly thereafter flying down to Rio.

Strong’s flexibility, however, must not be mistaken for open-mindedness. His friends, his allies among Canadian Liberals, his networks in the UN and the Third World, even his long-term business partners (like the late Paul Nathanson, wartime treasurer of the Canadian-Soviet Friendship Committee) all lean Left. He has said the Depression left him “frankly very radical.” And given his ability to get things done, the consistency of his support for a world managed by bureaucrats is alarming. As Elaine Dewar wrote in Toronto’s Saturday Night magazine:

It is instructive to read Strong’s 1972 Stockholm speech and compare it with the issues of Earth Summit 1992. Strong warned

urgently about global warming, the devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, polluted oceans, the population time bomb. Then as now, he invited to the conference the brand-new environmental NGOs [non-governmental organizations]: he gave them money to come; they were invited to raise hell at home. After Stockholm, environment issues became part of the administrative framework in Canada, the U.S., Britain, and Europe. IN the meantime, Strong continued the international networking on which his influence rests. He became a member of the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission). He found time to serve as president of the World Federation of United Nations Associations, on the executive committee of the Society for International Development, and as an advisor to the Rockefeller Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund. Above all, he served on the Commission on Global Governance — which, as we shall see, plays a crucial part in the international power grab. Sometimes, indeed, it seems that Strong’s network of contacts must rival the Internet. To list a few:

— Vice President Al Gore. (Of course.)

— World Bank President James Wolfensohn, formerly on the Rockefeller Foundation Board and currently on the Population Council Board; he was Al Gore’s favored candidate for the World Bank position.

— James Gustave Speth, head of the Carter Administration’s Council on Environmental Quality, crafter of the doomladen Global 2000 report, member of the Clinton – Gore transition team; he now heads the UN Development Program.

— Shridath Ramphal, formerly Secretary General of the (British) Commonwealth, now Co-Chairman of the Commission on Global Governance.

— Jonathan Lash, President of the World Resources Institute — which works closely with the World Bank, the UN Environment Program, and the UN Development Program — and Co-Chairman of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development.

— Ingvar Carlsson, former Swedish prime minister and Co-Chairman of the Commission on Global Governance.

But Strong is no snob; he even counts Republican Presidents among his friends. Elaine Dewar again:

Strong blurted out that he’d almost been shut out of the Earth Summit by people at the State Department. They had been overruled by the White House because George Bush knew him. He said that he’d donated some $100,000 to the Democrats and a slightly lesser amount to the Republicans in 1988. (The Republicans didn’t confirm.)

I had been absolutely astonished. I mean yes, he had done a great deal of business in the U.S., but how could he have managed such contributions?

Well, he’d had a green card. The governor of Colorado had suggested it to him. A lawyer in Denver had told him how.

But why? I’d asked.

“Because I wanted influence in the United States.”

So Strong gave political contributions (of dubious legality) to both parties; George Bush, now a friend, intervened to help him stay in charge of the Rio conference; he was thereby enabled to set a deep green agenda there; and Bush took a political hit in an election year. An instructive tale — if it is not part of Strong’s mythmaking. Most of Strong’s friends are more obviously compatible, which may explain why they tend to overlap in their institutional commitments. For example, James Wolfensohn (whom Strong had hired out of Harvard in the early Sixties to run an Australian subsidiary of one of his companies) appointed him as his senior advisor almost immediately upon being named chairman of the World Bank.

“I’d been involved in . . . Stockholm, which Maurice Strong arranged,” says Wolfensohn, who, more recently, has been credited with co-drafting (with Mikhail Gorbachev) the Earth Charter presented for consideration at the Rio + 5 meeting in Brazil earlier this year. As head of the Earth Council, Maurice Strong chaired that meeting.

It’s not a conspiracy, of course: just a group of like-minded people fighting to save the world from less prescient and more selfish forces — namely, market forces. And though the crises change — World War II in the Forties, fear of the atom bomb in the Fifties, the “energy crisis” in the Seventies — the Left’s remedy is always the same: a greater role for international agencies. Today an allegedly looming global environmental catastrophe is behind their efforts to increase the power of the UN. Strong has warned memorably: “If we don’t change, our species will not survive. . . . Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.” Apocalypse soon — unless international bodies save us from ourselves.

LAST week, Secretary General Annan unveiled Maurice Strong’s plan for reorganizing the UN. To be sure, the notoriously corrupt and inefficient UN bureaucracy could do with some shaking up. Strong’s plan, however, mostly points in a different direction — one drawn from a document, Our Global Neighborhood, devised by the interestingly named Commission on Global Governance.

The CGG was established in 1992, after Rio, at the suggestion of Willy Brandt, former West German chancellor and head of the Socialist International. Then Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali endorsed it. The CGG naturally denies advocating the sort of thing that fuels militia nightmares. “We are not proposing movement toward a world government,” reassuringly write Co-Chairmen Ingvar Carlsson and Shridath Ramphal, “. . . [but] this is not to say that the goal should be a world without systems or rules.” Quite so. As Hofstra University law professor Peter Spiro describes it: “The aim is not a superstate but rather the establishment of norm-creating multilateral regimes . . . This construct already constrains state action in the context of human rights and environmental protection and is on a springboard in other areas.”

The concept of global governance has been fermenting for some time. In 1991, the Club of Rome (of which Strong is, of course, a member) issued a report called The First Global Revolution, which asserted that current problems “are essentially global and cannot be solved through individual country initiatives [which] gives a greatly enhanced importance to the United Nations and other international systems.” Also in 1991 Strong claimed that the Earth Summit, of which he was Secretary General, would play an important role in “reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.” In 1995, in Our Global Neighborhood, the CGG agreed: “It is our firm conclusion that the United Nations must continue to play a central role in global governance.”

Americans should be worried by the Commission’s recommendations: for instance, that some UN activities be funded through taxes on foreign-exchange transactions and multinational corporations. Economist James Tobin estimates that a 0.5 per cent tax on foreign-exchange transactions would raise $1.5 trillion annually — nearly equivalent to the U.S. federal budget. It also recommended that “user fees” might be imposed on companies operating in the “global commons.” Such fees might be collected on international airline tickets, ocean shipping, deep-sea fishing, activities in Antarctica, geostationary satellite orbits, and electromagnetic spectrum. But the big enchilada is carbon taxes, which would be levied on all fuels made from coal, oil, and natural gas.

“A carbon tax,” the report deadpans, “. . . would yield very large revenues indeed.” Given the UN’s record of empire-building and corruption, Cato’s Ted Carpenter warns: “One can only imagine the degree of mischief it could get into if it had independent sources of revenue.”

Especially significant for the U.S. was the CGG’s proposal for eventual elimination of the veto held by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The Commission knew that the current permanent members of the Security Council, including the U.S., would not easily surrender their vetoes, and so it recommended a two-stage process.

In the first stage, five new permanent members (without a veto) would be added to the Security Council — probably Japan, Germany, Brazil, India, and Nigeria — along with three new slots for non-permanent members. But the real threat to U.S. interests is the second stage: “a full review of the membership of the Council . . . around 2005, when the veto can be phased out.” These plans are advancing. In March, the president of the UN General Assembly, Razali Ismail of Malayasia, unveiled his own formula for reforming the Security Council. It closely tracks the CGG’s proposals. In particular, Razali proposed “urg[ing] the original permanent members to limit use of the veto . . . and not toextend [it] to new permanent members.” He wanted to make the veto “progressively and politically untenable” and recommended that these arrangements be reviewed in ten years.

In July the State Department compromised — accepting five new Security Council members but remaining silent on the veto. It plainly hopes that the veto issue will go away if the U.S. concedes on enlarging the Council. Yet the CGG’s report makes clear that we are facing a rolling agenda to expand the power of UN bureaucrats. The veto issue may be postponed for ten years — but what then?

“This is an initiative that should be resisted by the United States with special vehemence,” says Ted Carpenter. For if the veto were eliminated, the United States would face the prospect of having other countries make key determinations that affect us without our consent.

THE Commission also wants to strengthen “global civil society,” which, it explains, “is best expressed in the global non-governmental movement.” Today, there are nearly 15,000 NGOs. More than 1,200 of them have consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (up from 41 in 1948). The CGG wants NGOs to be brought formally into the UN system (no wonder Kenneth Minogue calls this Acronymia). So it proposes that representatives of such organizations be accredited to the General Assembly as “Civil Society Organizations” and convened in an annual Forum of Civil Society.

But how would these representatives be selected? This June, the General Assembly held a session on environmental issues called Earth Summit +5. President Razali selected a number of representatives from the NGOs and the private sector for the exclusive privilege of speaking in the plenary sessions.

“I have gone to a lot of trouble with this, choosing the right NGOs,” he declared. So whom did he choose?

Among others: Thilo Bode, executive director of Greenpeace, to represent the scientific and technological community; Yolanda Kakabadse, the president of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature; and “from the farmers, I have chosen an organic farmer, Denise O’Brien from the United States, who is a member of the Via Campesina.” In what sense are these people “representative”? Whom do they > represent? Were the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the chairman of Toshiba, and the president of the Farm Bureau all too busy to come talk to the General Assembly?

Another example of how this selection process operates was the “great civil society forum” convened at the behest of Strong’s Earth Council and Mikhail Gorbachev’s Green Cross International this past March. Some five hundred delegates met, supposedly to assess the results of the Earth Summit, but in reality to condemn the “inaction” of signatory countries in implementing the Rio treaties. The delegates were selected through a process based on national councils for sustainable development, themselves set up pursuant to the Earth Summit. Membership in these councils means that an organization is already persuaded of the global environmental crisis. So you can bet that the process did not yield many delegates representing business or advocating limits on government power.

This kind of international gabfest is, of course, a sinister parody of democracy. “Very few of even the larger international NGOs are operationally democratic, in the sense that members elect officers or direct policy on particular issues,” notes Peter Spiro. “Arguably it is more often money than membership that determines influence, and money more often represents the support of centralized elites, such as major foundations, than of the grass roots.” (The CGG has benefited substantially from the largesse of the MacArthur, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations.)

Hilary French, Vice President of the alarmist Worldwatch Institute, justifies this revealingly as “a paradox of our time . . . that effective governance requires control being simultaneously passed down to local communities and up to international institutions.” Paradoxically or not, the voters hardly appear in this model of governance. It bypasses national governments and representative democracy in order to empower the sort of people who are willing to sit in committee meetings to the bitter end. Those who have better things to do — businessmen, workers, moms — would be the losers in the type of centralized decentralization envisioned by Worldwatch. The result would be decisions reached by self-selecting elites. In domestic politics, we have a name for such elite groups — special interests.

ANOTHER CGG recommendation is that the old UN Trusteeship Council “be given a new mandate over the global commons.” It defines the global commons to include the atmosphere, outer space, the oceans beyond national jurisdiction, and the related environmental systems that contribute to the support of human life. A new Trusteeship Council would oversee “the management of the commons, including development and use of their resources . . . [and] the administration of environmental treaties in such fields as climate change, biodiversity, outer space, and the Law of the Sea.”

It is hard to see what this expansive definition would exclude from the jurisdiction of the Trusteeship Council. Biodiversity encompasses all the plants and animals on the earth, including those that live in your backyard. Will UN troops swoop in to stop you from cutting down trees on your property? Doubtless not. But a recent case near Yellowstone National Park may be a foretaste of how international agencies can meddle in U.S. domestic affairs.

Yellowstone has been designated a “World Heritage Site.” These Sites are natural settings or cultural monuments recognized by the World Heritage Committee of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as having “outstanding universal value.” Sites are designated under a Convention ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1973, and it is possible to place such sites on a “List of World Heritage Sites in Danger.”

In this case, a mining company wanted to construct a gold mine outside the boundaries of Yellowstone. The normal environmental review of the project’s impact was still proceeding under U.S. law. But a group of environmentalist NGOs opposed to the mine were not content to wait for that review to take its course. They asked that members of the World Heritage Committee come to Yellowstone to hold public hearings. George Frampton, the Clinton Administration’s Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, wrote to the WHC saying: “The Secretary [Bruce Babbitt] and the National Park Service have clearly expressed strong reservations with the New World Mine proposal.” Frampton added: “We believe that a potential danger to the values of the Park and surrounding waters and fisheries exists and that the committee should be informed that the property as inscribed on the . . . List is in danger.” Four officials of the WHC duly came to Yellowstone and held hearings. And at its December 1995 meeting in Berlin, the Committee obligingly voted to list Yellowstone as a “World Heritage Site in Danger.”

“It was, in my opinion, a blatantly political act,” declared Rep. Barbara Cubin (R., Wyo.) during congressional hearings about the listing. “It was done to draw attention, public reaction, public response, and public pressure to see that the mine wasn’t developed.” Jeremy Rabkin, a Cornell political scientist, agrees that the international listing of such sites “provides an international forum through which to put pressure on U.S. policy.”

Would the mine really have endangered Yellowstone? We’ll never know. The environmental-impact statement was never issued, and, under pressure, the mining company accepted a $65-million federal buyout plus a trade for unspecified federal lands somewhere else. Thus, even with no enforcement power, this UN dependency was able to make land-use policy for the United States.

These events prompted Rep. Don Young (R., Alaska) to introduce the American Land Sovereignty Act. With 174 co-sponsors to date, the Act aims to “preserve sovereignty of the United States over public lands and . . . to preserve State sovereignty and private property rights in non-federal lands surrounding those public lands.” Congress would have to approve on a case-by-case basis land designations made pursuant to any international agreements.

But is U.S. sovereignty really in danger? In an interview, Strong dismissed Young’s anxieties. “I do not share his concern. It is no abdication of sovereignty to exercise it in company with others, and when you’re dealing with global issues that’s what you have to do.” He continues: “If you put yourself in a larger unit, of course, you get some advantages and you give up some of your freedom. And that’s what’s happening in Europe, that the states of Europe have decided that overall they’re better off to create a structure in which they give up some of their national rights and exercise them collectively through the Union.”

This example of the European Union, however, worries Ambassador Lichenstein. The EU’s bureaucracy in Brussels, he complains, “is responsible to no one. Governments get together — foreign ministers, finance ministers — they presumably hand down the guidelines, but don’t kid yourself, the bureaucrats are running things.”

The Yellowstone case is an example of how “feel-good” symbolism about the environment can be transformed into real constraints upon real people imposed outside the law, with no democratic oversight and no means of redress. Ironically, Strong himself had a run-in with Colorado environmentalists over local water rights. They did not have the wit to call in an international agency against the New Age rancher — or maybe they realized that Strong was one property owner whose rights the UN would respect.

AS troubling as the Yellowstone incident is, much greater potential for mischief lies in a new series of “framework treaties” designed to handle global environmental issues. Initially, the treaties called for voluntary actions by governments and set up a consultative process. But environmental activists like Hilary French know very well how this process works. “Even though it can look disappointing, the political will created [by these framework conventions] can lead to commitments of a more binding nature,” she said. This is already happening.

“Although its declaration of principles was transparently aspirational, the 1972 Stockholm world conference on the human environment is generally recognized as a turning point in international environmental-protection efforts,” wrote Peter Spiro. “From it emerged a standing institution (the UN Environment Program); weak but more focused ‘framework’ treaties followed, which in turn are being filled out by specific regulatory regimes. The 1985 Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer itself included no obligations, but the 1987 Montreal protocols and subsequent amendments set a full phaseout of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other ozone-depleting substances by 1996.

The regime covers 132 signatories with a total population of 4.7 billion people. Between 1987 and 1991, global CFC consumption was in fact reduced by half. A similar filling-out process is likely to occur with the biodiversity and climate-change conventions signed at Rio.” The “conventions” that Spiro was talking about emerged from the Earth Summit chaired by Maurice Strong. They deal with two of the alleged global environmental crises — global warming and species extinction.

At the time of the Earth Summit, some scientists predicted on the basis of climate computer models that the earth’s average temperature would increase by 4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century because of the “greenhouse effect.” These predictions are controversial among scientists. And as the computer models are refined, they show that the atmosphere will warm far less than originally predicted. Furthermore, more accurate satellite measurements show no increase in the average global temperature over the last two decades. Finally, an important study published in Nature concluded that even if the warming predictions are right, it could well be less costly to allow greenhouse gas emissions to continue to rise for a decade or more because technological innovations and judicious capital investment will make it possible to reduce them far more cheaply at some point before they become a significant problem. In other words, we needn’t take drastic and costly action now.

The process forges ahead anyway. The Framework Convention on Global Climate Change signed by President George Bush at the Rio Earth Summit is already beginning to harden. Initially, countries were supposed voluntarily to reduce by the year 2000 the “greenhouse gases” to the level emitted in 1990. Then, a year ago, at a UN climate-change meeting in Geneva, the Clinton Administration offered to set legally binding limits on the greenhouse gases the United States can emit. In June of this year, at the UN’s Earth Summit +5 session, President Clinton reaffirmed this commitment. And mandatory limits on carbon emissions are to be finalized at a global meeting of Convention signatories in Kyoto this December.

Estimates of the costs to the United States of cutting emissions range from $90 billion to $400 billion annually in lost Gross Domestic Product and a loss of between 600,000 and 3.5 million jobs. Global costs would be proportionately higher. Yet while the U.S. may be committing itself to limits, 130 developing nations, including China and India, are excluded under the Framework Convention from having to reduce their emissions, which, on present trends, will outstrip those of the industrialized world early in the next century. If the U.S. and other industrial countries have to limit energy use while the Third World is exempt, many industries will simply decamp to where energy prices are significantly lower.

If they are permitted to do so. For, as Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.) asked at a conference on “The Costs of Kyoto” held by the Competitive Enterprise Institute: “Who will administer a global climate treaty? . . . Will we have an international agency capable of inspecting, fining, and possibly shutting down American companies?” Sen. Hagel is not alone is his concern. In July the U.S. Senate passed 95 to 0 a resolution urging the Clinton Administration not to make binding concessions at the Kyoto conference.

But the climate-change treaty is not the only threat to U.S. interests. Though Mr. Bush refused to sign the Bio-diversity Convention at the Rio Earth Summit — chaired, remember, by GOP contributor Strong — that only delayed things. The Clinton Administration signed shortly after its inauguration. Since the treaty obliges signatories to protect plant and animal species through habitat preservation, its implementation could make the World Heritage Committee’s activities on U.S. land use seem penny-ante by comparison.

MEANWHILE, how much further down the path sketched out by the CGG will the UN reforms developed by Maurice Strong and announced by Kofi Annan last week take us? The most important initiative is the recommendation that the General Assembly organize a “Millennium Assembly” and a companion “People’s Assembly” in the year 2000. (The “People’s Assembly” mirrors the CGG’s “Civil Society Forum” idea — among other things, only accredited NGOs would be invited to advise the General Assembly.) But what would these grand new bodies actually do? The Millennium Assembly would invite “heads of Government . . . to articulate their vision of prospects and challenges for the new millennium and agree on a process for fundamental review of the role of the United Nations [emphasis added].” That last innocuous phrase is diplomatese for opening up the UN Charter for amendment. If that happens, so could anything — notably eliminating the veto in the Security Council.

The Millennium Assembly would also consider adopting Strong’s Earth Charter. For the most part the Charter reads like another feel-good document — its draft says that “we must reinvent industrial-technological civilization” and promises everybody a clean environment, equitable incomes, and an end to cruelty to animals — but we have seen how such vacuous symbolism can have real consequences down the line. Inevitably, the Charter advocates that “the nations of the world should adopt as a first step an international convention that provides an integrated legal framework for existing and future environmental and sustainable-development law and policy.” This is, of course, a charter for endless intervention in the internal affairs of independent states.

Which leaves external affairs. Hey presto! In line with the CGG’s plan, Annan/Strong urge that the UN Trusteeship Council “be reconstituted as the forum through which member states exercise their collective trusteeship for the integrity of the global environment and common areas such as the oceans, atmosphere, and outer space.” For the time being, however, Annan and Strong have avoided calling for global taxes or user fees to finance the UN. One spokesman said that the issue was simply “too hot to handle right now.” What they propose is a Revolving Credit Fund of $1 billion so that the UN will have a source of operating funds even if a major contributor (e.g., the U.S.) withholds contributions for a time. In short, the CGG’s blueprint for a more powerful UN closely resembles the movement to expand the requirements of the Framework Convention on Global Climate Change. While the process may be piecemeal, the goal is clear: a more powerful set of international institutions, increasingly emancipated from the control of the major powers, increasingly accountable not to representative democratic institutions but to unelected bureaucracies, and increasingly exercising authority over how people, companies, and governments run their affairs — not just Americans, but everyone. In short, Col. Qaddafi’s definition of his leftist Green Revolution: “Committees Everywhere.”

If so, the future looks good for Maurice Strong. One UN source suggested that, at the very least, he would like to be made Secretary General of the Millennium Assembly or the People’s Assembly. Others suspect that, even at age 68, Strong is angling to be the next UN Secretary General. Such eminence may help explain a puzzling incident in his early career. Having long had political ambitions, he decided to enter the Canadian Parliament. A candidate was evicted from a safe constituency by the Liberal leadership, and Strong moved in. Then, with only a month to go before the 1979 election, he suddenly pulled out of the race.

Strong’s business deals were especially complicated at the time — he was setting up a Swiss oil-and-gas exploration company with partners that included the Kuwaiti Finance Minister and the Arab Petroleum Investment Corporation — and that is the explanation usually given. But maybe he just decided that for a man who wants power, elections are an unnecessary obstacle.

What follows is a summary of and a link to another alarming connection of Maurice’s Strong. Edmund de Rothschild, his involvement with the CO2 Scam and his grab for our money and our food.

From Euro-med.dk: Summary: After Edmund de Rothschild’s statement, without basis, at the 4th World Wilderness Congress in 1987, that CO2 is the cause of a non-existent global warming – and that combating it needs money (our money), he founded the World Conservation Bank for this reason. In 1991 its name was changed to The Global Environment Facility (GEF). The purpose of this facility is to lend money to the poorest countries, printed by the IMF out of thin air, and with the guarantee of our governments. The facility takes wilderness areas with mineral riches as security. The GEF money is then to flow back to our governments as reimbursement for paid loans. I.e. We give away our tax money. For what? When a country cannot repay loans to the GEF it must give up a piece of its territory to the Rothschild banks (GEF, IMF, World Bank) – up to 30% of the Earth are meant. If land cannot be offered as collateral the country must starve (Haiti, Argentina and others). Rothschild´s stroke of genius was that he had his GEF smuggled into the UN system at the Rio UN Summit in 1992 by his friend, Maurice Strong. So now high-ranking ministerial officials from 179 countries are in the the council of the bank – blessing Rothschild grabbing the world! This article brings interviews with a man who was a participant at the 4th World Wilderness Congress,a man who knows what happened there and knew Rothschild personally – as well as David Rockefeller, who tried to threaten him to silence about what he had learned at the Wilderness Congress. The GEF is to manage the money just promised to the developing countries in Copenhagen (100 billion dollars a year from 2020 – 30 bn over the next 3 years) with the help of the World Bank. However, Rothschild does not leave it there. He and his henchmen are now joining the race of certain governments (China, Saudi Arabia), to buy up large areas of farmland in developing countries, having the crops transported back to the home countries. This leaves the locals, already starving, with much less crops available – with food prices rising rapidly – which is exactly Rothschild’s expectation. This makes people flee from Africa to Europe. Food prices have doubled in the past year or so – so that many people in Haiti before the earthquake, could not even afford to buy mud pies with minimal nourishment. And so it goes on. This is the ultimate goal of Rothschild’s New World Order

These are very important videos, each about 7 1/2 minutes. This will explain how Government is getting around typical channels to restructure, redistribute our “wealth”.

Some, you know of – The Federal Reserve, Fannie-Freddie. You can see these are not working out very well. However, they are escalating the pace at which these vehicles are being utilized at breakneck speed. Please educate yourself so that we can stop it here and see how the UN is gaining One World Order.

The funny thing about conspiracies is the one’s doing it know how easy it is to make the people who figure it out look like fools. They have been shouting that a lot lately. The problem is, whether you want to believe it or not, you should at least have command of the facts. To that I lend the following information.

Last week, Jesse Ventura’s new show Conspiracy Theories, discussed Bilderberg. During the show he had a very interesting conversation with Dr. Rima E. Laibow, MD – That segment of the show follows.

There is plenty of information in the forum at our sister site, http://www.WatchdogCentral.org on Bilderberg. The information posted here will go into a new forum subfolder called Codex Alimentarius – please add information to that folder as you find it. This column will touch on the basics. There is so many tentacles to this story there is no way it can be covered in full here. In the above clip, she mentions the council of seven men. I don’t know, but if I had to guess, I would say four of the members are Maurice Strong, George Soros, Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller. We also have much information about these people on this site, but it is easier to access it through the forum at WatchdogCentral.org. We are aware of several connections between these very same people and companies front and center in the health care field. I also believe it may have been Hillary Clinton of which she spoke in the video above. It could have also been Condoleezza Rice, however. I lean toward Hillary Clinton only because I know she is a self declared progressive and this is a progressive idea. I believe this because of an article I read at the website Coincidence Theories in which a quote appears from her Science and Technology advisors: “There are probably already too many people on the planet.”–Dr. Nina Fedoroff at Duke, 2009

Here are the 14 points (a primer, if you will) from Dr. Laibow:

These 14 points provide you with understanding about Codex Alimentarius – health freedom threat number one. It also explains what to do about it. Codex Alimentarius (Codex for short) means “Food Code.” This world food code is a United Nations agency, jointly sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). It has existed for nearly 50 years and its International Statute gives it a joint mission: protecting food safety and promoting world food trade. It is supposed to do so by adopting voluntary Guidelines and Standards (defining foods in international trade) and its decisions are enforced through the World Trade Organization (WTO) which considers its Guidelines and Standards as presumptive evidence in WTO trade disputes. It has become a creature of the Bigs – Big Govt, Big Agra, Big Pharma… etc.

Consumer Protection? Unfortunately Not
The first step to understanding Codex Alimentarius is to realize that it has absolutely nothing to do with “consumer protection”. That’s propaganda for the sake of getting people and Congress to yield to its implementation.

Says Who?Rima E. Laibow, M.D. is a successful natural medicine physician who graduated from Albert Einstein College of Medicine in 1970. Dr. Laibow has studied more than 16,000 pages of Codex Alimentarius documentation. Her conclusion? Codex Alimentarius is a very serious threat to health freedom. We must take it seriously.

Meaning of Name and History of Organization
“Codex Alimentarius” means “food rules” in Latin. The organization was born in 1962 when the UN established the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) as a “Trade Commission”. It was created to regulate, and thus control, every aspect of how food and nutritional supplements are produced and sold to the consumer. It is solely about trade and the profits of multi-national corporations.

Bolstering Profits of Pharmaceutical Industry
The more natural health products people use, the fewer drugs they use. Millions are turning to natural health. Big Pharma fears this as it would diminish profits. Codex is designed to protect Big Pharma profits by eliminating natural health products and treatments. Health food stores and wellness companies would be hit hard.

Codex Alimentarius is Unscientific
Codex is unscientific because it classifies nutrients as toxins and uses “Risk Assessment” to set ultra low so-called “safe upper limits” for them. Risk Assessment is a branch of Toxicology, the science for assessing toxins. The proper science for assessing nutrients is Biochemistry. Codex does not use Biochemistry.

Based on Tyrannical Napoleonic Legal Code
Codex is based on the Napoleonic Code, dating back to Bonaparte. Under this code, anything not explicitly permitted is automatically forbidden. Under Common Law (our system), something does not have to be explicitly permitted to be legal. The tyrannical Napoleonic Code allows the banning of natural health options by default.

Shrewdly, Slowly Raising Heat
Codex will go into global effect on December 31, 2009, unless we, the People, take action and avert it. Right now, we are like a frog boiled slowly, the heat raised gradually so we won’t jump out of the water. The media is used to make us believe that Codex is about “consumer protection”. Part of the media strategy is to tarnish the image of natural health options, through for-hire studies.

Beware Codex Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing
One-time defenders of supplements and nutritional products, such as the National Nutritional Foods Association (NNFA) and Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), have fallen prey to new pharmaceutical members and are spreading disinformation saying that Codex is “consumer protection”. Their boards used to be run by health freedom fighters.

VMG: Banning Our Supplements
Codex is made up of many standards for every aspect of food. One of these standards was ratified (approved) in July 2005: the destructive Codex Alimentarius Vitamin and Mineral Guideline (VMG). The VMG can ban all high potency and clinically effective vitamins & minerals. For example, Vitamin C would be restricted to only a few milligrams per dose. Other nutrients, such as amino acids, are also under threat.

DSHEA, Our Best Legal Defense
The U.S. has a powerful legal tool for health freedom: the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), passed in 1994 after massive grass-roots action. DSHEA scientifically classifies nutritional supplements as food and prevents dosage restrictions; Codex unscientifically classifies them as toxins and sets ultra-low doses. The VMG violates U.S. law because it violates DSHEA. We must unite to protect DSHEA, our best legal defense against Codex.

Congressional Effort Underway to Undermine DSHEA
The pharmaceutical industry works through irresponsible/corrupt politicians to do their bidding. The path to institute Codex in America is to “influence” Congress to pass laws friendly to drugs and unfriendly to nutritional supplements, so that slowly everyone comes to believe that nutrients are “dangerous”, and drugs are “proper medicine”. Susan Davis (D, CA) and other politicians are helping Big Pharma by supporting bills designed to destroy DSHEA.

U.S. Government Illegally Supports Codex
The U.S. Codex Office (the U.S. Codex “point of contact”) is unfortunately highly supportive of Codex. So is the rest of the government, including the pharmaceutical-friendly FDA. They should not be. DSHEA and other U.S. law means their support is in direct violation of the laws of the U.S.A.! They are breaking our laws and they know it.

Let’s Enter Coordinal Relationships With Congress
Congress has the power to keep America Codex-free. It can defeat bills designed to destroy DSHEA, support health freedom bills, and reprimand the U.S. Codex Office and the FDA. Using the Internet we can reach Congress directly to create a lobby of the people, for the people. Families of Congress would suffer too, if Codex is not averted.

Call to Action
Thanks to the Internet, millions of health conscious Americans can unite to protect health freedom from Codex Alimentarius. We have the power to turn Codex into a blessing if all of us in the natural health community use it to get active, get organized, and stand up for health freedom. Together, we will let Big Pharma know that we see through their deception and will protect our access to natural health care.

We have written many times here, at Soldier For Liberty, of the reason Health Care “Non-Reform” is such important legislation to the progressives as depopulation is a center focus of the UN. As well, we have pointed out how our governement is not only funding abortions at home, but worldwide. We have detailed many facts on this UN agenda in articles throughout 2009. They are too numerous to list, but look for articles regarding Agenda 21, especially. There is a folder on the WatchdogCentral forum for this also. From an article posted by Robin Phillips back in November, on a Townhall blog was the following information (and much more which I highly suggest you take the time to look at):

Decreasing the Surplus Population

Of course, a state that has unqualified authority over life is a state that has no scruples reducing the quantity of life in order to increase the quality of life (for those who are left). Though this sounds like something from the Gulags or Nazi Germany, it is actually the operating assumption behind those political and financial gurus who have recently been calling for a massive decrease in the “surplus population.” Consider that:

In an interview with the New York Times, Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg alluded to the fact that abortion is all about getting rid of certain types of people that we do not want around: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.

Echoing comments made by the Optimum Population Trust in 2007, The London School of Economics recently suggested that the best way to combat global warming is to reduce the surplus population through contraception and abortion. (Their logic is simple: more people = more polluters.) Similarly, a 2007 report, written by specialist Professor Barry Walters for the Australian medical journal, calls for couples with more than two children to be charged a lifelong tax to offset their extra offspring’s carbon dioxide emissions. Parents to be charged $5000 a head for every child after their second, and an annual tax of up to $800. (See Steve Watson’s article ‘Elite Depopulation Agenda Gains Ground‘)

In its autumn 2009 edition (Issue 10), Salvo magazine reported that the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has come up with a new way to reduce poverty: reduce poor people. The campaign, which has been supported by Bill Gates, does so by supporting and funding coercive sterilization, contraception and abortion campaigns. (See Stephen Moore’s article Don’t Fund UNFPA Population Control). In this regard, it should not be overlooked that many have warned that ‘Agenda 21′ of the United Nations Division For Sustainable Development also has population control implications.

In a 1981 interview which is quoted here, Thomas Ferguson of the State Department Office of Population Affairssaid “we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it..”

College professors and leaders frequently cite the Georgia Guidestones to in arguing that that we should “maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.” To achieve that, the human population would have to be thinned by 90%.

The Anglo-Dutch financial empire has been and still is committed to reducing the world’s population from the present 6.7 billion, to under 2 billion persons. As Laurence Hecht reminds us, this has been stated repeatedly in the post-war period by such leading spokesmen as Lord Bertrand Russell, Julian Huxley, and World Wildlife Fund founders Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and the still-living Prince Philip, who has reiterated many times his desire to see the human population thinned.

Robert McNamara of the World Bank has said, “Excessive population growth is the greatest single obstacle to the economic and social advancement of most of the societies in the developing world.”

Initiative for the United Nations ECO-92 Earth Charter reads, “The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary.”

Dr. Henry Kissinger has said “World population needs to be decreased by 50%.”

Friends of the Earth founder, David Brower, has stated, “That’s the first thing to do, start controlling the population in affluent white America, where a child born to a white American will use about fifty times the resources of a child born in the black ghetto.” “Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license…. All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” (Taken from Population Control…Just a Conspiracy Theory, Right?)

President Obama’s top science and technology advisor, John P. Holdren, has advocated the possibility of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.

The underlining premise behind all of the above is the same premise that undergirded the 20th century eugenics movement, namely the idea that irresponsible individualism in breeding is a cancer on the human population, harming posterity. Government, not God, holds the future of the human race in its reigns and can save us, quite literally, by strategic intervention designed at reducing the surplus population. Building on Rousseau’s idea that life, liberty and property are given to us by the state for the sake (not of the individual) but of the general will of the whole, it is no small step to believe that these privileges can be revoked as soon as too much life threatens the health of the collective.

More information can be found on Dr. Laibow’s website here , including the article Nightmare on Elm Street’s Dinner Table. Thank you, Monsanto! Rima E. Laibow, MD There is also a movie in my video bank about Monsanto, called Controlling Our Food. You can reach this off the Vodpod Bank to the right of this post, or on WatchdogCentral in our video bank.

I will try to keep abreast of this issue for you, but please, help me by posting information in the folder on the WatchdogCentral.org forum.

To get caught up, the best starting point is the forty minute speech Dr. Laibow gave at the NANP Conference in 2005. This speech is very important and will go a long way to help you understand the importance of the subject of Codex Alimentarius, which involves every bit as much corruption as Global Warming and Cap and Trade, except here we are talking about your food, your ability to protect yourself, if you so choose, against toxins, growth hormones, etc..and impacts your ability to purchase simple vitamins and nutrients.

We’ve been telling you for months about how Cop 15, and global warming alarms in general, are nothing more than socialist (or worse) scams to redistribute wealth.

Socialist dictator Hugo Chavez leaves no doubt.

Rather than blaming his and other corrupt governments around the world for their troubles, they of course, blame the US. Even though we have given billions and billions of our own money to help these countries, the majority of it goes to line the pockets of wealthy, evil dictators, such as Chavez.

The progressives in Washington, however, side with the socialists on this. They feel it appropriate to pay the lions share of the one hundred billion dollar annual pay off.

Our government is complicit. When not stealing on behalf of the banks, when not throwing money away on pet pork projects, when not commondeering our corporations and delivering regulatory and financial suicide bombs to our small businesses, they are simply handing our money over to those who would do us harm.

Americans must get educated as to the actual facts, get involved, or simply pour another glass of grape kool aid. Bottom’s up.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s speech on climate change to COP15 meeting in Copenhagen:

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, Excellencies, friends, I promise that I will not talk more than most have spoken this afternoon. Allow me an initial comment which I would have liked to make as part of the previous point which was expressed by the delegations of Brazil, China, India, and Bolivia. We were there asking to speak but it was not possible. Bolivia’s representative said, my salute of course to Comrade President Evo Morales, who is there, President of the Republic of Bolivia.

[Audience applause]

She said among other things the following, I noted it here, she said the text presented is not democratic, it is not inclusive.

I had hardly arrived and we were just sitting down when we heard the president of the previous session, the minister, saying that a document came about, but nobody knows, I’ve asked for the document, but we still don’t have it, I think nobody knows of that top secret document.

Now certainly, as the Bolivian comrade said, that is not democratic, it is not inclusive. Now, ladies and gentlemen, isn’t that just the reality of the world?

Are we in a democratic world? Is the global system inclusive? Can we hope for something democratic, inclusive from the current global system?

What we are experiencing on this planet is an imperial dictatorship, and from here we continue denouncing it. Down with imperial dictatorship! And long live the people and democracy and equality on this planet!

[Audience applause]

And what we see here is a reflection of this: Exclusion.

There is a group of countries that consider themselves superior to us in the South, to us in the Third World, to us, the

underdeveloped countries, or as a great friend Eduardo Galeano says, we, the crushed countries, as if a train ran over us in history.

In light of this, it’s no surprise that there is no democracy in the world and here we are again faced with powerful evidence of global imperial dictatorship. Then two youths got up here, fortunately the enforcement officials were decent, some push around, and they collaborated right? There are many people outside, you know? Of course, they do not fit in this room, they are too many people. I’ve read in the news that there were some arrests, some intense protests, there in the streets of Copenhagen, and I salute all those people out there, most of them youth.

[Audience applause]

Of course young people are concerned, I think rightly much more than we are, for the future of the world. We have — most of us here – the sun on our backs, and they have to face the sun and are very worried.

One could say, Mr. President, that a spectre is haunting Copenhagen, to paraphrase Karl Marx, the great Karl Marx, a spectre is haunting the streets of Copenhagen, and I think that spectre walks silently through this room, walking around among us, through the halls, out below, it rises, this spectre is a terrible spectre almost nobody wants to mention it: Capitalism is the spectre, almost nobody wants to mention it.

[Audience applause]

It’s capitalism, the people roar, out there, hear them.

I have been reading some of the slogans painted on the streets, and I think those slogans of these youngsters, some of which I heard when I was young, and of the young woman there, two of which I noted. You can hear among others, two powerful slogans. One: Don’t change the climate, change the system.

[Audience applause]

And I take it onboard for us. Let’s not change the climate, let’s change the system! And consequently we will begin to save the planet. Capitalism is a destructive development model that is putting an end to life; it threatens to put a definitive end to the human species.

And another slogan calls for reflection. It is very in tune with the banking crisis that swept the world and still affects it, and of how the rich northern countries gave aid to bankers and the big banks. The U.S. alone gave, well, I lost the figure, but it is astronomical, to save the banks. They say in the streets the following: If the climate were a bank it would have been saved already.

[Audience applause]

And I think that’s true. If the climate were one of the biggest capitalist banks, the rich governments would have saved it.

I think Obama has not arrived. He received the Nobel Peace Prize almost the same day that he sent 30 thousand soldiers to kill more innocents in Afghanistan, and now he comes to stand here with the Nobel Peace Prize, the president of the United States.

But the United States has the machinery to make money, to make dollars, and has saved, well, they believe they have saved the banks and the capitalist system.

Well, this is a side comment that I wanted to make previously. We were raising our hand to accompany Brazil, India, Bolivia, China, in their interesting position that Venezuela and the countries of the Bolivarian Alliance firmly share. But hey, they didn’t let us speak, so do not count these minutes please, Mr. President.

[Audience applause]

Look, over there I met, I had the pleasure of meeting this French author Hervé Kempf. Recommending this book, I recommend it, it is available in Spanish – there is Hervé – its also in French, and surely in English, How the Rich are Destroying the Planet. Hervé Kempf: How the Rich are Destroying the Planet. This is what Christ said: it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. This is what our lord Christ said.

[Audience applause]

The rich are destroying the planet. Do they think the can go to another when they destroy this one? Do they have plans to go to another planet? So far there is none on the horizon of the galaxy.

This book has just reached me, Ignacio Ramonet gave it to me, and he is also around somewhere in this room.

Finishing the prologue or the preamble this phrase is very important, Kempf says the following, I’ll read it:

“We can not reduce global material consumption if we don’t make the powerful go down several levels, and if we don’t combat inequality. It is necessary that to the ecological principle that is so useful at the time of becoming conscious, ‘think globally and act locally,’ we add the principle that the situation imposes: ‘Consume less and share better.’”

I think it is good advice that this French author Hervé Kempf gives us.

Current human activity exceeds the threshold of sustainability, endangering life on the planet, but also in this we are profoundly unequal.

I want to recall: the 500 million richest people, 500 million, this is seven percent, seven percent, seven percent of the world’s population. This seven percent is responsible, these 500 million richest people are responsible for 50 percent of emissions, while the poorest 50 percent accounts for only seven percent of emissions.

So it strikes me as a bit strange to put the United States and China at the same level. The United States has just, well; it will soon reach 300 million people. China has nearly five times the U.S. population. The United Status consumes more than 20 million barrels of oil a day, China only reaches 5-6 million barrels a day, you can’t ask the same of the United States and China.

There are issues to discuss, hopefully we the heads of states and governments can sit down and discuss the truth, the truth about these issues.

So, Mr. President, 60 percent of the planet’s ecosystems are damaged, 20 percent of the earth’s crust is degraded, we have been impassive witnesses to deforestation, land conversion, desertification, deterioration of fresh water systems, overexploitation of marine resources, pollution and loss of biodiversity.

The overuse of the land exceeds by 30 percent the capacity to regenerate it. The planet is losing what the technicians call the ability to regulate itself; the planet is losing this. Every day more waste than can be processed is released. The survival of our species hammers in the consciousness of humanity. Despite the urgency, it has taken two years of negotiations for a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, and we attend this event without any real and meaningful agreement.

And indeed, on the text that comes from out of the blue, as some have called it, Venezuela says, and the ALBA countries, the Bolivarian Alliance say that we will not accept, since then we’ve said it, any other texts that do not come from working groups under the Kyoto Protocol and the Convention. They are the legitimate texts that we have been discussing so intensely over the years.

[Audience applause]

And in these last few hours, I believe you have not slept, plus you have not eaten, you have not slept. It does not seem logical to me to come out now with a document from scratch, as you say.

The scientifically substantiated objective of reducing the emission of polluting gases and achieving an agreement on long-term cooperation clearly, today at this time, has apparently failed, for now.

What is the reason? We have no doubt.

The reason is the irresponsible attitude and lack of political will from the most powerful nations on the planet. No one should feel offended, I recall the great José Gervasio Artigas when he said: “With the truth, I neither offend nor fear.” But it is actually an irresponsible attitude of positions, of reversals, of exclusions, of elitist management of a problem that belongs to everyone and that we can only solve together.

The political conservatism and selfishness of the largest consumers, of the richest countries shows high insensitivity and lack of solidarity with the poor, the hungry, and the most vulnerable to disease, to natural disasters. Mr. President, a new and single agreement is essential, applicable to absolutely unequal parties, according to the magnitude of their contributions and economic, financial and technological capabilities and based on unconditional respect for the principles contained in the Convention.

Developed countries should set binding, clear and concrete commitments for the substantial reduction of their emissions and assume obligations of financial and technological assistance to poor countries to cope with the destructive dangers of climate change. In this respect, the uniqueness of island states and least developed countries should be fully recognized.

Mr. President, climate change is not the only problem facing humanity today. Other scourges and injustices beset us, the gap between rich and poor countries has continued to grow, despite all the millennium goals, the Monterrey financing summit, at all these summits as the President of Senegal said here, revealing a great truth, there are promises and unfulfilled promises and the world continues its destructive march.

The total income of the 500 richest individuals in the world is greater than the income of the 416 million poorest people. The 2.8 billion people living in poverty on less than $2 per day, representing 40 per percent of the global population, receive only 5 percent of world income.

Today each year about 9.2 million children die before reaching their fifth year and 99.9 percent of these deaths occur in poorer countries.

Infant mortality is 47 deaths per thousand live births, but is only 5 per thousand in rich countries. Life expectancy on the planet is 67 years, in rich countries it is 79, while in some poor nations is only 40 years.

Additionally, there are 1.1 billion people without access to drinking water, 2.6 billion without sanitation services, over 800 million illiterate and 1.02 billion hungry people, that’s the global scenario.

Now the cause, what is the cause?

Let’s talk about the cause, let’s not evade responsibilities, and let’s not evade the depth of this problem. The cause, undoubtedly, I return to the theme of this whole disastrous panorama, is the destructive metabolic system of capital and its embodied model: Capitalism.

Here’s a quote that I want to read briefly, from that great liberation theologian Leonardo Boff, as we know a Brazilian, our American. Leonardo Boff says on this subject as follows:

“What is the cause? Ah, the cause is the dream of seeking happiness through material accumulation and of endless progress, using for this science and technology with which they can exploit without limits all the resources of the earth.”

And he cites here Charles Darwin and his “natural selection”, the survival of the fittest, but we know that the strongest survive over the ashes of the weakest.

Jean Jacques Rousseau, we must always remember, said that between the strong and the weak, freedom is oppressed. That’s why the Empire speaks of freedom; it’s the freedom to oppress, to invade, to kill, to annihilate, and to exploit. That is their freedom, and Rousseau adds this saving phrase: “Only the law liberates.”

There are countries that are hoping that no document comes out of here precisely because they do not want a law, do not want a standard, because the absence of these norms allows them to play at their exploitative freedom, their crushing freedom.

We must make an effort and pressure here and in the streets, so that a commitment comes out of here, a document that commits the most powerful countries on earth.

Can a finite earth support an infinite project? The thesis of capitalism, infinite development, is a destructive pattern, let’s face it.

Then Boff asks us, what might we expect from Copenhagen? At least this simple confession: We can not continue like this. And a simple proposition: Let’s change course. Let’s do it, but without cynicism, without lies, without double agendas, no documents out of the blue, with the truth out in the open.

How long, we ask from Venezuela, Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, how long are we going to allow such injustices and inequalities? How long are we going to tolerate the current international economic order and prevailing market mechanisms? How long are we going to allow huge epidemics like HIV/AIDS to ravage entire populations?

How long are we going to allow the hungry to not eat or to be able to feed their own children? How long are we going to allow millions of children to die from curable diseases? How long will we allow armed conflicts to massacre millions of innocent human beings in order for the powerful to seize the resources of other peoples?

Cease the aggressions and the wars! We the peoples of the world ask of the empires, to those who try to continue dominating the world and exploiting us.

No more imperial military bases or military coups! Let’s build a more just and equitable economic and social order, let’s eradicate poverty, let’s immediately stop the high emission levels, let’s stop environmental degradation and avoid the great catastrophe of climate change, let’s integrate ourselves into the noble goal of everyone being more free and united.

Mr. President, almost two centuries ago, a universal Venezuelan, a liberator of nations and precursor of consciences left to posterity a full-willed maxim: “If nature opposes us, let’s fight against it and make it obey us.” That was Simón Bolívar, the Liberator.

From Bolivarian Venezuela, where a day like today some ten years ago, ten years exactly, we experienced the biggest climate tragedy in our history (the Vargas tragedy it is called), from this Venezuela whose revolution tries to win justice for all people, we say it is only possible through the path of socialism!

Socialism, the other spectre Karl Marx spoke about, which walks here too, rather it is like a counter-spectre. Socialism, this is the direction, this is the path to save the planet, I don’t have the least doubt. Capitalism is the road to hell, to the destruction of the world. We say this from Venezuela, which because of socialism faces threats from the U.S. Empire.

From the countries that comprise ALBA, the Bolivarian Alliance, we call, and I want to, with respect, but from my soul, call in the name of many on this planet, we say to governments and peoples of the Earth, to paraphrase Simón Bolívar, the Liberator: If the destructive nature of capitalism opposes us, let’s fight against it and make it obey us, let’s not wait idly by for the death of humanity.

History calls on us to unite and to fight.

If capitalism resists, we are obliged to take up a battle against capitalism and open the way for the salvation of the human species. It’s up to us, raising the banners of Christ, Mohammed, equality, love, justice, humanity, the true and most profound humanism. If we don’t do it, the most wonderful creation of the universe, the human being, will disappear, it will disappear.

This planet is billions of years old, and this planet existed for billions of years without us, the human species, i.e. it doesn’t need us to exist. Now, without the Earth we will not exist, and we are destroying Pachamama as Evo says, as our indigenous brothers from South America say.

Finally, Mr. President, and to finish, let’s listen to Fidel Castro when he said: “One species is in danger of extinction: Humanity.”

Let’s listen to Rosa Luxemburg when she said: “Socialism or barbarism.”

Let us listen to Christ the Redeemer when he said: “Blessed are the poor for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, we are capable of not making this Earth the tomb of humanity. Let us make this earth a heaven, a heaven of life, of peace, peace and brotherhood for all humanity, for the human species.

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much and enjoy your meal.

How interesting it was to come across this post today from The Met Office in Britain.

We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.

The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that ‘Warming of the climate system is unequivocal’ and that ‘Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations’.

Then they post a fairly impressive list of scientists, rumored to number around 1700, who “signed” their little statement. Impressive, that is, until you learn The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change. Impressive until you hear one of the signatories told The Times he felt pressured to sign as The Met Office has a history of appointing and working only with scientists who share their views to substantiate man made global warming. Impressive, until see the list of scientists on the other side of the matter, and read some of the comments in the newest update to the Senate Minority Report.

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.

More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting “global warming” the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth’s climate.

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,” the petition states. “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Here are some comments from the recent update of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Minority Staff Report Original Release: December 11, 2008

Presented at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”– Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” – Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken…Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” – Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

“Nature’s regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” – Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

“Whatever the weather, it’s not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” – Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society’s activities.” – Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” -Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” – Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO. (The full quotes of the scientists are later in this report)

Did you take note of the British Court Decision that excoriates Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth?

The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. The Court found that the film was misleading in nine respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The inaccuracies are:

The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.

The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.

The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

It goes on to say there were 20 inaccuracies found. Lord Monckton prepared a witness statement for the trial.

Lord Monckton, as discussed here earlier this week, noted in his recent speech, an unbiased forecast puts “global warming” at 0.5 degrees over the next hundred years, a statistically insignificant amount.

Still not convinced? Have you seen the Climategate emails? It had been rumored these were obtained by some mysterious Russian hacker. Truth is, we now learn, the documents came to light by the hands of a whistleblower on the inside. Although this puts to rest the reasoning behind the Lame Stream Media’s attempt to sequester the emails, not printing them because they were illegally obtained, most have yet to put them on display. They are on display here by clicking the link earlier in this paragraph.

In an interesting column, John Coleman – KUSI-TV, Weather Channel Founder, posted on What’s Up With That, a top tier scientific blog the following:

The 21st century Goliath is Global Warming. It is a powerful six-legged monster. In no order of strength, those legs are:

(1) The big money climate change scientists and their powerful institutions from governmental centers to Universities,

(2) The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is a Geneva-based, highly funded bureaucracy controlled by one-world government political activists,

(3) Environmentalists who seek to use threats of climate chaos to stop the use of fossil fuels and return to a simpler, more “natural”, primitive lifestyle,

(4) Government at all levels whose political leaders find dealing with global warming is their opportunity to save us all from disaster cementing their status and success,

(5) The media populated by people who love to warn us of impending disaster and give us the advice we need to cope, who believe in Al Gore and his political party and who know that “the sky is falling” is the best headline of them all,

(6) Al Gore, who uses his status as a successful former Senator and Vice President to provide a platform to promote his message of doom and gloom, a message he learned in his only college science class and must have truly believed for many years but should see now is only an empty threat.

The total financial resources and power structure behind Goliath are staggering.

Goliath now occupies Copenhagen. For the 15th time, Goliath is meeting to publicize his long list of threatened consequences if do not head his demands. The ice will melt, the coasts and islands will flood displacing millions and killing tens of thousands; the polar bears and eventually thousands of other species will die as habitats are destroyed; hurricanes will become superstorms wrecking havoc on the coastal cities killing tens of thousands; heat waves will kill more hundreds of thousands as they grip the planet; drought and heat will destroy our agriculture starving untold millions more. He tells us this is because of our carbon footprints left by our burning of fossil fuels emitting exhaust of carbon dioxide.

Fifteen thousand “delegates” are attending Goliath’s conference coming by hundreds of private jet aircraft, riding in over a thousand limos, occupying every hotel room for miles around and all living on expense accounts paid by taxpayers and stock holders. They are making speeches, politicking one another and most importantly negotiating how much the people of each of their nations will reduce their carbon footprints in coming years, having a major impact on all our lifestyles.

Meanwhile, here at home The Environmental Protection Administration, part of Goliath’s government leg, just classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant that is an endangerment to our lives. And the US Congress is working with the President on legislation known as Cap and trade that will make all of us pay taxes for our carbon footprints.

Goliath is a rich and very powerful monster. He thrives on carbon dioxide.

Today we are honored to have a guest blogger with us at Soldier For Liberty: Justin Brown is a freelance writer whose current profession is an Active Duty Infantryman. He has served three tours to Iraq in the last five years and continues to study the inner workings of politics, looking to further educate himself and others on the truth that lies behind the guise of the misleading main media.

The Indoctrination of Youth

By: Justin Brown

Skeptics will state that there is no such thing as the implementation of indoctrinating the children of the United States of America; however from the mouths of government officials, agencies, and past Presidents’, this shows to be far from the actual truth. Do not get me wrong; am I by no means talking down upon the teachers in our education system. I am simply stating that many of us in society are willingly being used to implement the work of those behind the scenes that wish to impose power much greater than the average citizen can even begin to fathom. They do this through television, our educational system, sports, the media, etc. I’d like to place before you just one of the means by which such is and has been implemented for quite a long time. It is known as ideological subversion.

Ideological subversion is a four step plan that has been implemented upon the people for so long that even those teaching such doctrine to our kids, for the most part are unaware that they’re willingly brainwashing our youth. This goes along with them having already been indoctrinated themselves. In instances such as criminal court trials, evidence must be presented; please allow me to show you, the reader, exactly why this is to be very much true. This is but a small piece to a very much larger picture.

Ideological Subversion begins with demoralization. Demoralization begins and is approximately a fifteen to twenty year process. That is approximately the allotted time it takes to educate one generation of students. The agenda of this step is to expose your enemy to your ideology; which in this case is a conglomeration of Marxism/Leninism/Socialism/Fascism made into one single ideology. History has shown that one in and of itself hasn’t been sufficient enough to hold true and rule over a society, but there are strong points to each ideology. Take out the weak and implement the strong points; then, and only then, can you subvert a true government that can overcome the masses, or so the thought goes. According to former KGB Agent Yuri Bezmenov who worked in the field of subversion stated to the effect; you need to pound it (the enemy’s ideology) into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students without being challenged; neither by any outside sources nor against the basic ideology that is essentially Americanism or American Patriotism. There are many quotes from prominent sources as to educating and manipulating the youth.

In 1919, United States Communist Party stated “Give us one generation of small children to train to manhood and womanhood and we will set up the Bolshevist form of the Soviet Government.” (“NationalRepublic,” Volume 32, p. 35) Hitler went even further by stating to Hermann Rauschning in 1933 about his youth, “I’m beginning with the young. We older ones are used up… We are rotten to the marrow. We have no unrestrained instincts left. We are cowardly and sentimental. We are bearing the burden of a humiliating past, and have in our blood the dull recollection of the serfdom and servility. But my magnificent youngsters! Are there finer ones anywhere in the world? Look at these young men and boys! What material! With them I can make a new world.” (Hitler’s Children, The Hitler Youth and the SS,” by Gerhard Rempel, pp. 1-2) Again in 1939 Hitler again boldly declared, “When an opponent declares ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, ‘your child belongs to us already. What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, will stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.’ ” (“The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany,” by William Shirer, p. 249)

Our greater implementation of indoctrinating the youth came more in force through the Department of Education, which was created in 1980 to make school systems Federally run and regulated, thus taking the power from the states and the people respectively as our Constitution states. The guise is stating that they are state regulated, but with some research, this will show that if implementations aren’t being met on the Federal level than changes will and do occur.

How do we truly know the true nature by which the government has helped at such a feat and that this truly is what they want for the American people? One such quote of proof comes from former President Nixon when he “declared the first five years of a child’s life to be a period of special and specific federal concern.” (“Nixon, the First Year of His Presidency,” by Congressional Quarterly, p. 108) Even looking back further to the Fall of 1970, we can see how serious our government was about this indoctrinating when six children were removed from their parents and placed in a foster home because the parents refused to send them to public school teaching “sex education” in conflict with their religious beliefs. (“The Unseen Hand,” by Ralph Epperson, p. 391) In 1985 Yuri Bezmenov again stated that this had already been completed in the United States and had been going on for 35 years already. Imagine how far we really are now. Mr. Bezmenov states, “Most of it is done by Americans to Americans, thanks to lack of moral standards… Exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person, who is demoralized, is unable to assess true information; truth and facts tell nothing to him…even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it until he, he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom.”

Another huge step in our indoctrination was through the new found thought (at the time) of global disaster by which human’s were to be made responsible. This implementation is known as Agenda 21; a 40 chapter document delineating the plan for literally taking over the world. It was signed into United States acceptance in 1992 through the United Nations for a Brave New World. One such implementation of this is a principle known as the “Cautionary Principle” by which you’re guilty until proven innocent. We can now see the full initiative of this through the International Criminal Court Association. This will flow through the Transnational United Nations by which our Federal Government wants very much to be a part of. Sanctions are being opened up once again for this by President Obama after President Bush surprisingly took it off the table, worried that we troops would fall under this while fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Another principle through Agenda 21 is Sustainable Development. Some things that aren’t sustainable according to this document include fossil fuels, private property, golf course, ski lodges, consumerism, farmlands, pastures, grazing of livestock, the family unit, etc. In order to initiate such a feat, you must first indoctrinate the young to believe that they are the cause of all of this; once you’ve initiated such than you can work at ridding such thoughts from societies mind into believing it must be done for the better good. Just how involved is our government in wanting this. One such statement from Bush Sn. says it all. At the U.N. Conference for the implementation of Agenda 21 he stated, “It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance.” (“Controlled Chaos,” by Michael London, p. 292) After Bush Sn. Brought this back to America, Bill Clinton; then by Executive Order, without Congressional approval established the Presidents Council for Sustainable Development for exactly this. (“Environmental Policy and Politics: Toward the Twenty-First Century,” by Michael Kraft, p. 192)

Further specifics on how they’ve used this document occur by those who help implement the curriculum in our school systems. Agenda 21 has been studied closely; the government then implements it in our school systems and the slow indoctrination of how they train us up as puppets begins (or began so long ago). Goals within Agenda 21 include the end to National Sovereignty (Copenhagen Agreement), the end of Private Property, the Restructure of the Family Unit (Using Darwinism/Humanism in schools as a stepping stone which takes spirituality out and implements the carnal nature of animal in its place), and increasing restrictions on freedoms and mobility by which there is an opportunity to advance in one’s life.

Humanism is very much in our Educational systems as well; this along with Communism are the planks by which it functions. In fact one of the 34 signers of this Humanist Manifesto was none other than John Dewey who is also known as the “Father of Progressive Education.” In fact Mr. Dewey was polled for the most influential educator over the last 50 years, from 1924 to 1974. One quote about Mr. Dewey and his influence on education states, “No individual has influenced the thinking of American educators more.” The Humanism Manifesto II was then published in 1974 and states the Humanist agenda is “the building of a world community,” predicated upon, “the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government.” (“The Unseen Hand,” by Ralph Epperson, pp. 378-381)

The next step is destabilization. This takes approximately the next two to five years. The essentials that are at stake include economy, foreign relations, and defence systems. The economy must be brought to the verge of crisis; this is the third step by which after crises you then have normalization as the final step. This step could last forever, or so the thought goes. At the brink of these crises, the mass must be promised all kinds of things whether they’ll be fulfilled or not. This is to eliminate the compromise of a free market economy (Bail Outs) and to put a big brother government in WashingtonD.C. (The Patriot Act).

Looking further into the third step; crises we can see some interesting details from history. Much like our Bail Out, with another one soon to follow; Mussolini did this in 1935. He bailed out Auto Manufacturer Alfa Romero and then supplanted the government to control such, thus taking away much of the free market economy. We’ve done this Fascist feat here in America and have taken it a step further by adding in the banks; while many ignorant (unknowledgeable) American’s applaud at such an Unconstitutional agenda. Big brother is very much in control now too, with the implementation of the Patriot Act so long ago. The only changing aspect to this is that it continues to get more and more pervasive within the confines of our everyday lives. This again happened in Germany with the burning down of the ReichstagParliamentaryBuilding, by which the Enabling Act of 1933 was enacted just like ours of today over the tragic 9/11. The Enabling Act gave Hitler and the once Democratic government total control over the people much like our Patriot Act already has today; sadly while many applaud at such a thing, believing it’s for the greater good of protecting the people against a war on a military tactic.

Mr. Bezmenov also added in 1985, civil rights movements are instrumental in the destabilization process of a nation; though after complete takeover they’re no longer needed because they know too much. History shows this has also again happened in Germany with the SA (Storm Troops). Before 1933, both the HJ (Hitler’s Youth) and the SS (The Elite Echelon) were involved, creating viable political organizations within the much larger confines of the SA until 1934. During the summer of this year Himmler and the SS were used as assassins to rid the regime of high officials in the SA, these men of course that had worked with Hitler to his grand rising. This was known specifically as the “Blood Purge” and the SA were prevented specifically by the aid of Himmler from every attaining nearly the amount of power as they had before this “Blood Purge.” (“The SS, Alibi of a Nation,” by Gerald Reitlinger, p. 71)

Much like the political organizations that were created back then are used in the same sense today; so as to further subvert the minds of Americans throughout with false Marxist/Leninist/Socialist/Fascist ideology, amalgamated into looking toward this now very apparent One World Government/Ideology. Those in power study such events feverishly in an attempt to resubvert such a thing in America so as to bring upon this One World Government, which they’re now publicly stating we’re about to have. Sadly, with the creation of television this has been made quite easy. Not only can the elite enjoy the comfort at knowing the mass of children are being indoctrinated at school; they can further enjoy the reality that the average child in America now spends an average of five hours a day watching television once they get home.

The final step will soon be upon us unless people begin further awaking to what’s going on; normalization of people. This last phase will ultimately result in the One World Government. The crisis was 9-11 and began there; these other crisis such as unemployment, health care, false flag war on a military tactic, and the global warming hoax, are all serving the respective purposes. Once we’re in normalization, we’ll either become a part of this new Regime or we’ll be exterminated; at least that’s what history tells us along with people that work in high places like John Holdren, David Rockefeller and many others that incorrectly state killing us off is a necessity if we’re to keep this planet alive. This will further subvert us into the ultimate slavery with the promise of change and hope. Sadly, we’re fast tracking such a feat, at a level that the elites cannot even believe.

Control: The House and Senate climate bills contain a provision giving the president extraordinary powers in the event of a “climate emergency.” As chief of staff Rahm Emanuel says, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

If you thought the House health care bill that nobody read has hidden passages that threaten our freedoms and liberty, take a peak at the “trigger” placed in the byzantine innards of both the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill and the Kerry-Boxer bill just passed by Democrats out of Sen. Barbara Boxer’s Environment and Public Works Committee.

As Nick Loris of the Heritage Foundation points out, the Kerry-Boxer bill requires the declaration of a “climate emergency” if the concentration of carbon dioxide and other declared greenhouse gases in the atmosphere exceeds 450 parts per million (ppm). It was at about 286 ppm before the Industrial Revolution and now sits at around 368 ppm.

That figure was picked out of a hat because the warm-mongers believe that’s the level at which the polar ice caps will disappear, boats can be moored on the Statue of Liberty’s torch and dead polar bears will wash up on the beaches of Malibu.

The Senate version includes a section that gives the president authority, under this declared “climate emergency,” to “direct all Federal agencies to use existing statutory authority to take appropriate actions … to address shortfalls” in achieving greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions.

What the “appropriate actions” might be are not defined and presumably left up to the discretion of the White House. Could the burning of coal be suspended or recreational driving be banned? Sen. David Vitter, R-La., asked the EPA for a definition and received no response.

Competitive Enterprise Institute scholar Chris Horner says “this agenda transparently is not about GHG concentrations, or the climate. It’s about what the provision would bring: almost limitless power over private economic activity and individual liberty for the activist president and, for the reluctant leader, litigious greens and courts” packed by liberal Democrat appointees.

In an open letter to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), dated November 2, 2009, members of the Congressional Western Caucus expressed great concern to Attorney General Holder regarding the ongoing and apparent abuse of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) by certain organizations including environmental and special interest groups. The Caucus highlights the complete lack of oversight, accountability, and transparency in the overall process and allocation of funds under EAJA, which appears to have contributed to the egregious abuse.

“Environmental groups have been working to deny grazing rights to America’s ranchers for decades. They do so by claiming violations of environmental policy, suing federal environmental agencies and ultimately, tying up ranchers’ time and resources in costly, and often baseless, court battles,” said Jeff Faulkner, Western Legacy Alliance (WLA) member. “What makes this situation worse is the fact that these environmental groups such as Western Watersheds Project and the Center for Biological Diversity are shaking down federal government programs so they can access taxpayer dollars to fund their radical agendas.”

Two of the federal programs that are seemingly handing out millions, and possibly billions, to environmental groups are the EAJA and the Judgment Fund.

The EAJA was established approximately 30 years ago by Congress to ensure that individuals, small businesses and/or public interest groups with limited financial capacity could seek judicial redress from unreasonable government actions that threatened their rights, privileges or interests.

According the U.S. Department of the Treasury website, the Judgment Fund, which was created in the 1960’s, “…is available for most court judgments and Justice Department compromise settlements of actual or imminent lawsuits against the government. Congress has added a number of administrative claim awards (settlements by agencies at the administrative level, without a lawsuit). The Judgment Fund has no fiscal year limitations, and there is no need for Congress to appropriate funds to it annually or otherwise. Moreover, disbursements from it are not attributed to or accounted for by the agencies whose activities give rise to awards paid. Absent a specific statutory requirement, the agency responsible is not required to reimburse the Judgment Fund.”

Since 2003, the Judgment Fund has paid out $4.7 billion in judgments, including the reimbursement of attorney’s fees. It appears environmental groups have accessed millions of taxpayer dollars from this fund; however, the Web site reporting these payments does not indicate to whom the payments were made or for what purpose. Additional investigation reveals that the same environmental groups benefiting from EAJA payments are accessing the Judgment Fund to millions of dollars each year.

American taxpayers are being forced to fund thousands of lawsuits filed against the federal government by environmental organizations — with their lawyers clocking thousands of hours and charging fees of up to $650 an hour.

The U.S. government hands out millions of dollars each year to various environmental organizations to help protect fish, wildlife and other aspects of the environment. And every year, those same groups spend millions suing the government over everything from forest policy and carbon emissions to water quality and wolf habitats.

Who paid the attorneys fees? The American taxpayers did.

In the lucrative world of environmental law, the biggest defendant is the federal government, and taxpayers foot the bill. The nation’s ten largest environmental groups have sued the government more than 3,000 times in a nine-year period, according to legal fund the Western Legacy Alliance, an Idaho-based legal fund that defends ranchers and farmers.

Now, the growing number of cases is beginning to attract the attention of some lawmakers in Congress.

Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., has written to the Department of Justice asking for an investigation, pointing out that much of the money being paid comes out of the Equal Access to Justice Act fund, which Congress set up for the indigent and public interest groups to recover legal fees.

Right now, the government does not account for how much is paid out to whom or for what reason.

“These are taxpayer dollars that are being used by the federal government to compensate people who have sued the federal government. I believe that taxpayers have the right to know who those people are and how much they’ve been paid,” Lummis told Fox News.

They should not expect any help from the current Administration, however.

According to the Institute for Energy Research, half of the nearly 1500 page House Cap and Trade Bill is not about carbon emissions at all, but rather completely alter America’s economy. Dr. Robert Michaels, a Senior Fellow with IER, who examined the bill, found that the rest of the bill is packed with regulations that would completely alter the United States’ economy. He argues that even without cap-and-trade, Waxman-Markey is the most repressive package of new taxes, wealth transfers and obstacles to economic activity that a Congress has ever assembled. His findings are available in a 39 page pdf document.

To further make the point this is not about science, but rather control, President Obama announced this week, after Climate gate broke, he will indeed flip-flop on attending Copenhagen and will, at the conference, obligate America to unreasonable carbon emission standards, which cut emissions by 17%, by 2020.

CCX owns the Chicago, Montreal and London Climate exchanges. CCX is 10% owned by Goldman Sachs (GS) and 10% owned by Generation Investment Management (GIM), an investment firm founded & chaired by Al Gore. This firm was co-founded by the former Treasury Secretary under George W. Bush and former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson.

Goldman Sachs was the number one private donor to the Obama campaign.

An article in UK’s Telegraph earlier this month said Al Gore is positioned to be the world’s first Carbon billionaire. And a blog entitled American Everyman talks about Al Gore’s partnership with former Goldman Sachs and Leeman Brothers execs, as well as other Venture Capitalists. He posts the first of these very educational videos as well:

On it’s Board of Directors, none other than Maurice Strong.

External Advisory board chair Chicago Mayor and Friend of Obama, Richard Dailey, and among it’s members are Ed BegleyJr., Joseph P. Kennedy II, and former Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Michael Zammit Cutajar.

As well, General Electric, owners of NBC and affiliate cable channels, often criticized for it’s pro-Obama stance, will help facilitate the carbon transfers through it’s arm, known as Greenhouse Gas Services, as well as through the various “green initiatives” facilitated by the company.

Another of the big players is also involved:

Bloomberg noted: Billionaire George Soros, looking to address the “political problem” of climate change, said he will invest $1 billion in clean-energy technology and donate $100 million to an environmental advisory group to aid policymakers. [He] announced the investment in Copenhagen on Oct. 10 at a meeting on climate change sponsored by Project Syndicate. The group is an international association made up of 430 newspapers from 150 countries.

…Soros’s announcement comes two months before 190 nations will gather in the Danish capital for a final round of negotiations on a new climate treaty that includes provisions to finance clean- energy projects in developing nations. Talks last week in Bangkok were marked by a dispute between richer and poorer nations over whether to renew or abandon the Kyoto Protocol, the only existing global agreement to reduce carbon dioxide, which is blamed for global warming.

Soros, 79, also will establish the Climate Policy Initiative, a San Francisco-based organization to which he will donate $10 million a year for 10 years.

Soros made his fortune, as you’ll recall, by trashing the pound culminating in Britain’s Black Wednesday in 1992. He is systematically attempting the same thing here and has recently launched another new initiative “The Institute for New Economic Thinking“.

The fact of the matter is, while Cap and Trade deals with the corporate side of carbon, it’s just a jumping off point. Anyone familiar with United Nations Agenda 21 can plainly see it will, in short time, lead to what amounts to a “Breath Tax”, placed on every living thing. This is being undertaken the same way politicians are building Health Care “Reform” for the sole purpose of getting to a single-payer system, also called for in Agenda 21. Neither addresses any substantive issue, they only give control to the government and the UN.

In another great Canada Free Press column by Tim Ball, renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor, he points out:

Extreme left journalist George Monbiot ignored all the facts I provided when he was pointing a finger at me. He’s ignoring them again, which forces him to assume the deniers are at fault. He wrote, “There is no point in denying it: we’re losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere that cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.”

The sphere is expanding for several reasons.

All evidence rejects the hypothesis that human CO2 is causing warming or climate change.

Facts are gradually getting to the public despite obstructionism by journalists like Monbiot.

Temperature projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are consistently wrong.

Record cold temperatures are occurring everywhere.

Motives of those pushing the need for reduction in CO2 are being exposed.

Economic costs of a completely unnecessary action are emerging.

A blogger named Granite Grok put up a couple really interesting graphs on their blog I found rather to the point, which clearly show 2009 to be one of the coldest years in recent history, and United States and European emissions are and have been fairly flat since all this started in 1970, compared to those on a global scale.

Britain’s Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, suffered a data breach in recent days when a hacker apparently broke into their system and made away with thousands of emails and documents. The stolen data was then posted to a Russian server and has quickly made the rounds among climate skeptics. The documents within the archive, if proven to be authentic, would at best be embarrassing for many prominent climate researchers and at worst, damning.

The electronic break in itself has been verified by the director of the research unit, Professor Phil Jones. He told Britain’s Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”

The paper goes on to discuss, at length the individual emails, and if you have not yet seen them, I urge to to follow the link.

…So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory – a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below – emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down skeptics.

This is clearly not the work of some hacker, but of an insider who’s now blown the whistle.

Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal. In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holdren is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”.

“The files contain so much material that it is going to take some time t o put it all in context,” says Ball. “However, enough is already known to underscore their explosive nature. It is already clear the entire claims and positions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based on falsified manipulated material and is therefore completely compromised.

“The fallout will be extensive as material continues to emerge. Reputations of the scientists involved are already destroyed, however fringe players will continue to be identified and their reputations destroyed or sullied.”

While the mainstream media is bending into pretzels to keep the scandal under the rug, Climategate is already the biggest scientific scandal in history because of the global policy implications.

According to Fascistsoup.com, there’s more to those emails appears at first glance. I urge you to watch these two, fairly lengthy videos, together taking about 15 minutes of your time, but ending in priceless understanding. Education is a valuable thing.

Those pushing the leftist theology call all who find fault with the global warming agenda “Deniers”. I must ask now who the REAL “DENIERS” are? Remember Alinsky doctrine – if you can not dispute the facts, launch personal attacks. To them I must say,

“Sticks and stones may break my bones,

but names will never hurt me.

Deceit and lies will fuel your side,

but with facts we will subvert thee.”

Ed Note: Please read Green Hell by Steve Milloy, our first book of the month selection here at Soldier For Liberty. You will become enlightened on the truth of the “Green Agenda”.

Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced… a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals -an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of evey human action be integrated into individual and collective decision making at every level.

–Excerpt from Agenda Twenty-One : The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet by Element Books Ltd, Daniel Sitarz (Editor) written with the cooperation of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Listed as one of the top books for the 21st century by the International Center for Environment and Public Policy of the California Institute of Public Affairs

Over the weekend we had the good fortune to get a head’s up from Lord Christopher Moncton. If you haven’t seen that video yet, start here: http://wp.me/pxG9Z-cf

Then we learned from him on Monday Maurice Strong played a vastly important roll in all this http://wp.me/pxG9Z-cn and http://wp.me/pxG9Z-cv which lead to an epiphany http://wp.me/pxG9Z-cz involving Agenda 21, which was discussed earlier here http://wp.me/pxG9Z-8X . As if this all was not bad enough, there is far more to to this story. This is information you ABSOLUTELY MUST KNOW. To turn your head away now, will be to your own peril. The video you are about to see is shocking. While I’ve heard rumors, I never quite really understood. Now, I understand. I eluded to it in yesterday’s column, but knew we’d have to take this in baby steps.

I’m old enough that I have heard talk of all this over the passing decades, but it all seemed so ludicrous. Hindsight is indeed 20/20. There’s a large part of me that wishes I could go back to the days when I knew none of this. Better yet, I wish I had the last several decades to relive with this information. We will not be afforded that luxury. I can assure you once you see this video, you’ll wish that too.

Referred to in the video were two books. I have provided free copies, as available, for you here:

Limits to Growth (“cliff notes” version – could not find full version in pdf)

So, what exactly is the Club of Rome and who are its members? Founded in 1968, the CoR describes itself as “a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity.” It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN beaureacrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe.

I would like to start this analysis of the Club of Rome by listing some prominent members of the CoR and its two sub-groups, the Clubs of Budapest and Madrid. Personally it isn’t what the CoR is that I find so astonishing; it is WHO the CoR is! This isn’t some quirky little group of green activists or obscure politicians. They are the most senior officials in the United Nations, current and ex-world leaders, and the founders of some of the most influential environmental organisations. When you read their reports in the context of who they are – its gives an entirely new, and frightening, context to their extreme claims.

The Club of Rome subsequently founded two sibling organizations, theClub of Budapestand the Club of Madrid. The former is focused on social and cultural aspects of their agenda, while the latter concentrates on the political aspects. All three of these ‘Clubs’ share many common members and hold joint meetings and conferences. As explained in other articles on this website it is abundantly clear that these are three heads of the same beast. The CoR has also established a network of 33 National Associations. Membership of the ‘main Club’ is limited to 100 individuals at any one time. Some members, like Al Gore and Maurice Strong, are affiliated through their respective National Associations (e.g. USACOR, CACOR etc).

Some current members of the Club of Rome or its two siblings:

Al Gore– former VP of the USA, leading climate change campaigner, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Academy Award winner, Emmy winner. Gore lead the US delegations to the Rio Earth Summit and Kyoto Climate Change conference. He chaired a meeting of the full Club of Rome held in Washington DC in 1997.

Javier Solana– Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, High Representative for EU Foreign Policy.

Maurice Strong– former Head of the UN Environment Programme, Chief Policy Advisor to Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the Rio Earth Summit, co-author (with Gorbachev) of the Earth Charter, co-author of the Kyoto Protocol, founder of the Earth Council, devout Baha’i.

Mikhail Gorbachev– CoR executive member, former President of the Soviet Union, founder of Green Cross International and the Gorbachev Foundation, Nobel Peace Prize winner, co-founder (with Hidalgo) of the Club of Madrid, co-author (with Strong) of the Earth Charter.

David Rockefeller– CoR executive member, former Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, founder of the Trilateral Commission, executive member of the World Economic Forum, donated land on which the United Nations stands.

Sir Crispin Tickell– former British Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Permanent Representative on the Security Council, Chairman of the ‘Gaia Society’, Chairman of the Board of the Climate Institute, leading British climate change campaigner.

Kofi Annan– former Secretary General of the United Nations. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Stephen Schneider– Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports.

Bill Clinton– former President of the United States, founder of the Clinton Global Iniative.

Jimmy Carter– former President of the United States, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Garret Hardin– Professor of Human Ecology. Originator of the ‘Global Commons‘ concept. Has authored many controversial papers on human overpopulation and eugenics.

OTHER CURRENT INFLUENTIAL MEMBERS:

Ted Turner – media mogul, philanthropist, founder of CNN
George Soros – multibillionare, major donor to the UN
Tony Blair – former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Deepak Chopra – New Age Guru
Desmond Tutu – South African Bishop and activist, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Timothy Wirth – President of the United Nations FoundationHenry Kissinger – former US Secretary of State
George Matthews – Chairman of the Gorbachev Foundation Harlan Cleveland – former Assistant US Secretary of State and NATO Ambassador
Barbara Marx Hubbard – President of the Foundation for Conscious EvolutionBetty Williams – Nobel Peace Prize LaureateMarianne Williamson – New Age ‘Spiritual Activist’
Robert Thurman – assistant to the Dalai Lama
Jane Goodall – Primatologist and Evolutionary BiologistJuan Carlos I – King of Spain
Prince Philippe of Belgium
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
Dona Sophia – Queen of Spain
José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero – current Prime Minister of Spain
Karan Singh – Former Prime Minister of India, Chairman of the Temple of UnderstandingDaisaku Ikeda – founder of the Soka Gakkai cultMartin Lees – CoR Secretary General, Rector of the UN University of Peace
Ernesto Zedillo – Director of The Yale Center for the Study of GlobalizationFrithjof Finkbeiner – Coordinator of the Global Marshall Plan Franz Josef Radermacher – Founder of the Global Marshall Plan Eduard Shevardnadze – former Soviet foreign minister and President of Georgia
Richard von Weizsacker – former President of Germany
Carl Bildt – former President of Sweden
Kim Campbell – former Prime Minister of Canada and Senior Fellow of the Gorbachev FoundationVincente Fox – former President of Mexico
Helmut Kohl – former Chancellor of Germany
Romano Prodi – former Prime Minister of Italy and President of the European CommissionVaclav Havel – former President of the Czech Republic
Hans Kung – Founder of the Global Ethic FoundationRuud Lubbers – United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Mary Robinson – United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Jerome Binde – Director of Foresight, UNESCO
Koïchiro Matsuura – Current Director General of UNESCO
Federico Mayor – Former Director General of UNESCO
Tapio Kanninen – Director of Policy and Planning, United Nations
Konrad Osterwalder – Under-Secretary-General of the United NationsPeter Johnston – Director General of European Commission
Jacques Delors – Former President of the European Commission
Domingo Jimenez-Beltran – Executive Director of the European Environment Agency
Thomas Homer-Dixon – Director of Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Toronto
Hazel Henderson – Futurist and ‘evoluntionary economist’
Emeka Anyaoku – former Commonwealth Secretary General, current President of the World Wildlife FundWangari Maathai – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, founder of the Green Belt Movement

While I can not prove this next statement, my gut tells me President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on the promise of his signature on UN Kyoto Protocol treaty in December of this year at COP 15 in Copenhagen. Look at all the Peace Prize recipients on the list.

The pieces now begin to fall into place. I will spend the next several days, laying out pieces of this for you in as much as I can.

If you have anything to contribute to this, please leave your information in the comment section. I am merely a citizen like you, with a full time job. Any help that can be given to me would be appreciated.

Time is short. Please, tell everyone you know, no matter what side of the fence they are on. Please point them here. We will try to learn about this together, quickly. I will be posting additional information on this daily until it’s all laid out.

Saturday is the 64th anniversary of the UN. I will be in my hometown protesting with a few others that understand what is happening. It only takes one to protest. Call your friends. Hold up signs. “Say no to Agenda 21- Tell our President NOT TO SIGN AWAY OUR SOVEREIGNTY IN DECEMBER OR EVER”. As I say repeatedly, change starts with YOU.

No matter what side of the proverbial fence you are on, I’ll bet this is not Change You Can Believe In!

Media Complicit and Lacking in Duty

*Traditional beliefs simply don’t fit the UN vision for 21st Century communities. To find more universal values,The UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) met June 3-14, 1996 in Istanbul. Leaders convened a day-long “Dialogue” on the meaning of Solidarity at the elegant Ciragan Palace in Istanbul. The official list of 21 panel members included former Jerusalem mayor Teddy Kollek, historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr, and Maurice Strong who led the 1992 UN conference on environment.

“I have gathered leaders with tremendous wisdom and prestige,” began Habitat Secretary-General Wally N’Dow. “They are bringing the spiritual dimension-the only ingredient that can bind societies together.” He had chosen an American moderator who would add credibility to the discussion: Robert MacNeil (of MacNeil-Lehrer), “one of the spiritual lights of the media industry today.”

This hand-picked “interfaith group” left little doubt that solidarity meant a universal shift to the new globalist-New Age paradigm (or world-view). “Change your whole way of thinking, because the new order of the spirit is confronting and challenging you,” said Millard Fuller, President of Habitat for Humanity.

“Citizenship for the next century is learning to live together,” said Federico Mayor, Director General of UNESCO. “The 21st Century city will be a city of social solidarity…. We have to redefine the words… [and write a new] social contract.”

“We should stop bemoaning the growth of cities,” added Dr. Ismail Serageldin, Vice President of The World Bank. “It’s going to happen and it’s a good thing, because cities are the vectors of social change and transformation. Let’s just make sure that social change and transformation are going in the right direction.” Later he added, “The media must act as part of the education process that counters individualism.”

Race to Global Governance and Loss of US Sovereignty

“[The Earth Summit will play an important role in] reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.”
-Maurice Strong quoted in the September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine.

*In an essay by Strong entitled Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation, he says:

“Strengthening the role the United Nations can play…will require serious examination of the need to extend into the international arena the rule of law and the principle of taxation to finance agreed actions which provide the basis for governance at the national level. But this will not come about easily. Resistance to such changes is deeply entrenched. They will come about not through the embrace of full blown world government, but as a careful and pragmatic response to compelling imperatives and the inadequacies of alternatives.”

”The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. What is needed is recognition of the reality that in so many fields, and this is particularly true of environmental issues, it is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.”

*Please take the time to read this snip from an old RMN article:

*…placing Strong in charge of U.N. reform could pose a significant threat to the American way of life as Strong has used his position to centralize power in the U.N. at the expense of national sovereignty.

*Journalist Elaine Dewar interviewed Strong and wrote about him in her book Cloak of Green. She writes, “He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.” Also:

“He told me he had more unfettered power than a cabinet minister in Ottawa. He was right: He didn’t have to run for re-election, yet he could profoundly affect lives.”

That “unfettered power” led to his role in creating the Kyoto Protocol.

*In 1990, Maurice Strong gave an interview to WEST magazine, where he described how he envisioned the Earth being saved:

“Each year the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Hundreds of CEO’s, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather each February to attend meetings and set the economic agendas for the year ahead.

“What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment? Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth?

“The group’s conclusions is ‘no.’ The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilization collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Two years after making that statement, Strong laid the foundation, and helped in the creation of the Kyoto Protocol.

The socialist agenda

*This global contract binds all nations and spreading regions to the the collective vision of “sustainable development.” They must commit to pursue the three E’s of “sustainability”: Environment, Economy and Equity referring to the UN blueprint for environmental regulations, economic regulations, and social equity. Agenda 21, the UN blueprint for global transformation, sounds good to many well meaning people. Drafted for the purpose of creating “sustainable societies”, it has been welcomed by nations around the world. Political, cultural, and media leaders have embraced its alluring visions of social justice and a healthy planet. They hide the lies behind its doomsday scenarios and fraudulent science. Relatively few consider the contrary facts and colossal costs. After all, what could be wrong with preserving resources for the next generation? Why not limit consumption and reduce energy use? Why not abolish poverty and establish a global welfare system to train parents, monitor intolerance, and meet all our needs? Why not save the planet by trading cars for bikes, an open market for “self-sustaining communities,” and single dwellings for dense “human settlements” (located on transit lines) where everyone would dialogue, share common ground, and be equal? The answer is simple. Marxist economics has never worked. Socialism produces poverty, not prosperity. Collectivism creates oppression, not freedom. Trusting environmental “scientists” who depend on government funding and must produce politically useful “information” will lead to economic and social disaster. Even so, local and national leaders around the world are following the UN blueprint for global management and “sustainable communities,” and President Clinton is leading the way. A letter I received from The President’s Council on Sustainable Development states that – “In April 1997, President Clinton asked the council to advise him on: next steps in building a new environmental management system for the 21st century… and policies that foster U.S. leadership on sustainable development internationally. The council was also charged to ensure that social equity issues are fully integrated…” (Emphasis added) Many of our representatives are backing his plan. In a 1997 letter congratulating the Local Agenda 21 Advisory Board in Santa Cruz for completing their Action Plan, Congressman Sam Farr wrote, “The Local Agenda 21 Action Plan not only has local significance, it also will have regional and national impacts. As you know, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development is beginning Phase III of its work with an emphasis on sustainable communities.” (emphasis added) This agenda may already be driving your community ís “development”, so be alert to the clues. Notice buzzwords such as “visioning,” “partners,” and “stakeholders.” Know how to resist the consensus process. Ask questions, but don’t always trust the answers.

*China is a special place for Strong, a self-declared, life-long socialist. It is the burial place of a woman said to be one of his relatives, the famous pro-communist American journalist Anna Louise Strong, a vociferous supporter of Lenin and Stalin until the mid-‘30s, and a strong booster of Mao Zedong’s China. Maurice Strong’s presence in Beijing, however, raises awkward questions: For one thing, China, while one of the world’s biggest producers of industrial pollution, has been profiting from the trading of carbon emissions credits – thanks to heavily politicized U.N.-backed environmental deals engineered by Strong in the 1990s.

Strong has refused to answer questions from FOX News about the nature of his business in China, though he has been linked in press reports to planned attempts to market Chinese-made automobiles in North America, and a spokesman for the U.S.-based firm that had invited him to speak in San Francisco, Cleantech Venture Network, says he has recently been “instrumental” in helping them set up a joint venture in Beijing. Strong’s assistant in Beijing did confirm by e-mail that he has an office in a Chinese government-hosted diplomatic compound, thanks to “many continuing relationships arising from his career including 40 years of active relationships in China.”

And from China, Strong has to this day maintained a network of personal and official connections within the U.N. system that he has long used to spin his own vast web of non-governmental organizations, business associates and ties to global glitterati. Within that web, Strong has developed a distinctive pattern over the years of helping to set up taxpayer-funded public bureaucracies, both outside and within the U.N., which he then taps for funding and contacts when he moves on to other projects.

The current financial crisis provides an opportunity to make a fundamental change in the patterns of international cooperation, investment and production. New sustainable development trajectories are to be sought, based on low-carbon, clean technologies, with a large component of renewable energy sources. In fact, there are important synergies to be expected from integrating climate and energy related investments into strategies addressing the economic downturn, for example the employment gains of shifting towards renewable energy. A ‘shared vision’ based on the essential premise of the UNFCCC convention—common but diff erentiated responsibilities and capabilities will be the basis of any new international agreement agreed in Copenhagen. Negotiating parties must ensure that this shared vision show a clearand strong commitment to the overall objective of sustainable development and catch-up growth in developing countries. It should also include equity considerations such as poverty reduction and convergence in terms of income distribution and emissions per capita.

The rise of unions / acorn type organizations

*The US Network for Habitat II (led by Strong) is one of a myriad of national and international UN organizations committed to carry out the UN plan in local communities. “The Network is a forum for making sure people are heard,” explained one of its leaders. “Its role is to tie together the messages from all six UN conferences into practical action.”

“Partnerships will be increasingly important,” he continued. “People in faith communities can help us. We use the African proverb: “‘It takes a village to raise a child.’ …Collaboration links…government, the private sector, and the civil sector.”

Do you see the resemblance to the “People’s Government” that characterized the local “soviets” in the former USSR? Lenin knew he couldn’t win through representative democracy, so he organized local assemblies called Soviets. Linked through a national federation of Soviets, each local Soviet was ruled by the uneducated proletariat, the “raw material to be molded by an audacious leader”skilled in the use of propaganda. Private merchants, landlords, and priests were excluded from leadership. The chosen elites were supervised and disciplined by rulers at a higher level. Few dared complain. As Andrei Vishinsky wrote in The Law of the Soviet State, “There can be no place for freedom of speech, press, and so on for the foes of socialism.”

The UN plan matches US plans. The UN agenda fits well into the policy-making framework already being established in US communities. Three official plans for transforming cities show how UN tactics for change works hand-in-globe with US strategies.

In 1995, school districts from coast to coast were asked to use Education Secretary Riley’s Community Action Toolkit to change public opinion and win support for Goals 2000. In 1996, two similar plans for local transformation were introduced:

The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, the Habitat II action plan based on Agenda 21, the environmental program negotiated at the 1992 UN World Conference on Environment and Development.

Sustainable America: A New Consensus, a report by The President’s Council for Sustainable Development.

The striking similarity between the three plans suggest an alarming cooperation between the UN and US authors. All three share the following buzzwords or concepts: partnerships, consensus, lifelong learning, baselines or benchmarks, monitoring, assessment, data gathering, systemic change, system thinking, social development, etc. All stress the need to measure, assess, and monitor progress.

All are designed to bypass traditional government and govern people through a form of “citizens” or “grassroots participation” which the Encyclopedia Britannica refers to as “totalitarian democracy” and Communist leaders have called “People’s Government.” In the US, this system is already bypassing both state and national representative governments. As in Lenin’s Soviets, neither UN forums nor the US community meetings on education will acknowledge dissenting voices. Resisters are silenced by trained facilitators who only record voices that echo the “right” ideology.

Health care “reform” agenda

Touted as one of the most well connected men on the planet, Strong has used his extensive web of high level international connections to advance the demise of national sovereignty, democracy and traditional religion and other elements he believes are causing an over-populous and environmentally-irresponsible humanity to endanger the planet.

Ed note: Cutting medicare to seniors is another way to introduce population control. As well, the UN strongly believes in womens reproductive rights and has mandated funding for birth control methods, including abortion. This covenant in Agenda 21 and other UN programs to control population is the driving force in the “reform” now being proposed – this is why it really is not about reforming health care, but rather instituting population control in a way most Americans would be oblivious to

Cap and trade

*Strong in an interview at WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM – WASHINGTON, D.C. on APRIL 4, 2001 was asked about biodiversity and smart growth helping with energy issues: Absolutely and also paradox, we are going to see higher energy prices, and higher energy prices will provide a very strong incentive for people to use energy more efficiently [JV: like giving a dog a bone]. Not that one should advocate high prices, but high prices are not all bad, they will permit people, and even [encourage] people to use energy more efficiently.

*Why am I not surprised to see his name involved with cap-and-trade? Let’s see, he was involved in Oil for Food, and cash funneled via U.N. agencies to North Korea, and under Kofi Annan received a million dollar check bankrolled by Saddam Hussein’s U.N.-sanctioned regime that was delivered by Tongsun Park—Maurice Strong embodies all that is sinister and shady.

Today he is involved in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), the only firm in the U.S. that trades carbon credits, no doubt because he cares about the environment.

Out of control governement spending and economic justice

*Maurice Strong: The unsustainable nature of our current economic system was dramatically revealed by both the climate change and the economic crises. They are inextricably linked on a systemic, integrated basis and cannot be managed as separate and competing issues.

The climate change challenge requires us to make changes in the fundamental nature and functioning of our economic system and resist the temptation merely to patch up the existing system to enable to continue, however, temporally, on the pathway that led to its crisis.

Only through fundamental change can we transcend these crises and rebuild the economic and social foundations of our civilization to ensure its survival and sustainability….

*…according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, [ratifying Kyoto] could cost the economy $400 billion per year, raise electric utility rates by 86 per cent, hike the cost of heating oil by 76 per cent, and impose a permanent “Kyoto gasoline tax” of 66 cents per gallon. In total, each U.S. household would have to spend an extra $1,740 per year on energy. WEFA, an economic information and consulting firm, reports that 2.4 million jobs would be lost and manufacturing wages cut by 2.1 per cent.

* “This group of world leaders forms a secret society to bring about an economic collapse,” continued Strong, warming to his fantasy. “It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists. “They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodities and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock markets and computers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent the world’s stock markets from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the leaders at Davos as hostage. The markets can’t close…” Strong catches himself. “I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this.”

* Strong, the executive coordinator of the reform effort at the UN and senior advisor to the President of the World Bank, has one goal: to shape a peaceful and equitable future for all humankind….

Unemployment rates

Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.” -Maurice Strong quoted in the September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine.

Loss of the “American Lifestyle”

According to financial experts, the world, as we know it will change dramatically by the year 2012. People, who provided for their families only three years ago, will be desperately searching for food. The story of the economic meltdown of 2008 begins and ends with the United Nations and its carefully managed One World Order. Behind the curtain of this dark chapter in human misery are ogres Maurice Strong and George Soros.

It is both power lust and an all-consuming hatred of the United States of America that elevated this deadly duo to ogre status. Fortunately for all of those searching for answers, much of their plan for the world, post November 4, 2008 is already mapped out in writing. Leading economic experts and Strong agree that in 2012 people will be going hungry.

Strong has worked diligently and effectively to bring his ideas to fruition, He is now in a position to implement them.” (Henry Lamb, The Rise of Global Governance, available at soverignty.net). “His speeches and writings provide a clear picture of what to expect. In 1991, Strong wrote the introduction to a book published by the Trilateral Commission, called Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology, by Jim MacNeil. (David Rockefeller wrote the foreword). Strong said this:

“This interlocking…is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international. By the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life.”

These chilling words are in line with ones he used for the opening session of the Rio Conference (Earth Summit II) in 1992, that industrialized countries have:

“Developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class—involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing—are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”

The only change that has happened since 1992 is that Strong and Soros now have their Agent of Change coming to the White House.

*Strong also directs the U.N.’s Business Council on Sustainable Development. Under his leadership, the council tries to affect peoples’ lives through U.N. policies that attempt to reduce the availability of meat products; limit the use of home and workplace air conditioners; discourage private ownership of motor vehicles; encroach on private property rights; and work to reduce the number of single family homes.

The grab for control of our waterways

The California man made drought,which affects the American food supply, was caused by the federal government enforcing the Endangered Species Act, which has a rich history of robbing landowners of their rights. A closer look is warranted at the parties involved.

The lead Plaintiff in the water cut off is the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a false environmental agency, with an $ 87 million dollar budget, funded by the Ford Foundation, which is infamous for their affiliation with eugenics during WWII. The NRDC is operating against freedom and toward control of the masses as evidenced by their website; the legislative bills that visitors are encouraged to support include the Clean Water Restoration Act, which could federalize all water and the Law of Sea Treaty which would hand over unprecedented power to the United Nations on American marine waterways. Further, the NRDC works with the UN World Bank, which is notorious for water privatization . ( Maurice Strong- Senior Advisor to the United Nations and World Bank) The NRDC is a proud member of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

The IUCN was created by the UN (Sir Julian Huxley of UNESCO, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, to provide a more scientific base), advises the UN and develops treaties. The IUCN is active in identifying endangered species and one of their members include the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which is the agency that has the power to list endangered species. The IUCN frequently collaborates with the UN World Bank.

Laurance Rockefeller is named on the Board of Trustees of the NRDC. His family and the tax exempt Rockefeller Foundation have created and financed countless UN agencies and programs. The Rockefeller Foundation has gifted grants to the UN Population Council, which has its roots in eugenics, the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) and the UN World Bank. Read the transcript from Senator Norm Dodds’ interview with G. Edward Griffin for more information on the traitorous Rockefeller and Ford Foundations (http://www.realityzone.com/hiddenagenda2.html).

The Robert Redford Building houses the NRDC office in Los Angeles, and he is on the NRDC Board of Trustees. Robert Redford incessantly promotes man made global warming (which is based on corrupt science from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control), as well as Sustainable Development which, through the UN Global Biodiversity Assessment report, advocates erasing humans from 50% of the landscape and massive depopulation. Further, he is on the Global Council on Awakening Arts and Entertainment, which is closely related to the Club of Budapest, a branch of the Club of Rome, an organization famous for writing that they would use pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages and famine to unite them, and then named humanity as the enemy.

Indoctrination of our children

…“Education programs to teach the “global ethic” have been underway by UNESCO and by UNEP for more than twenty years.” (Page 90, The Rise of Global Governance). “That the U.S. government, through its representatives to the various U.N. agencies, has not already crushed this global governance agenda is s testament to the effectiveness of the U.N.’s education program.”

Remember, political activists, like self-proclaimed education “change agents”, have put expediency above integrity. As North Carolina school superintendent Jim Causby said at a 1994 international model school conference, “We have actually been given a course in how not to tell the truth. You’ve had that course in public relations where you learn to put the best spin on things.”

*“Agenda 21″ is now the earth’s new gospel. I believe that in the future it just may replace “The Communist Manifesto.” Ever read it? Your children are being taught it in their elementary schools through college. Furthermore, there are high school environmental clubs that are being taught to protest.

“PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Global warming issues took over lecture halls in colleges across the country (the United States) Thursday, with more than 1,500 universities participating in what was billed as the nation’s largest-ever “teach-in.”

Organizers said the goal of the event, dubbed “Focus the Nation,” was to move past preaching to the green choir, to reach a captive audience of students in many fields who might not otherwise tune in to climate change issues.

Faculty members from a wide spectrum of disciplines — from chemistry to costume design — agreed to incorporate climate change issues into their lectures on Thursday. Community colleges and some high schools also took part.

“It’s about infusing sustainability into the curriculum of higher education, so students can graduate prepared to deal with the world they have been handed,” said Lindsey Clark, 23, who organized events at the University of Utah.

Funding of the IMF and World Bank

.. “A new Economic Security Council (ESC) would replace the existing Economic and Social Council. The new ESC would consist of no more than 23 members who would have responsibility for all international financial and development activities. The IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO—virtually all finance and development activities—would be under the authority of this body. There would be no veto power by any nation. (Italics CFP’s). Nor would there be permanent member status for any nation.”

I love how this works: Barack Obama pledged $100 billion in foreign aid to help bail out the ailing International Monetary Fund in April. Only after he announced it did he go to Congress and make his case for the money. And yesterday, Obama water-carriers on the Hill cooked up a fuzzy math scheme to make it all work. Voila! $108 billion

Government take over of General Motors

Encourage China to invest in the Big Three, to ensure their survival through the use of Chinese components

By Maurice F. Strong

It is surely clear that the bailout of the U.S. automobile industry will not resolve its fundamental problems. But it could provide the time for a new approach that accords with the realities of the industry and can contribute to a resolution of its problems.

While I would not pretend to be an expert on the automobile industry, the close association I have had with it and my concern with its impacts on the environment — particularly the risks of climate change — have convinced me that radical changes are needed in the design and the use of automobiles. The need is particularly urgent in making the transition from fossil fuels to more environmentally benign alternatives and to develop new people-friendly approaches to transportation.

It would be unrealistic to expect that this can be done by denying ownership to people in China, India and other developing countries. The automobile industry is experiencing a growth that can be slowed down and rationalized but cannot be stopped. A prime example: The need to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions from autos is urgent and immediate. It cannot be achieved without giving high priority to the development of alternatives to oil and gas as their fuel, and to improved judgment and greater care in vehicle utilization. To be sure, some promising technologies and approaches are being developed, but thus far none are being developed on a scale that can be expected to meet this need in sufficient time.

The current crisis in the industry makes it possible to break new ground in resolving this fundamental dilemma in ways that would have been seen as unrealistic before the crisis. The Chinese have always regarded crises as creating opportunities. Now China could play a major role in helping to rescue the U.S. automobile industry while contributing to resolving the economic and environmental issues confronting the industry worldwide.

China’s domestic industry has been developing rapidly. Chinese companies are already moving into international markets and are inevitably targeting the U.S. market. While they have yet to meet the rigorous quality standards required, it is only a matter of time before they achieve this. In the meantime, the Chinese have provided U.S. and other foreign companies with some of their most profitable markets. And companies of both countries confront the challenge of leading the transition to the post fossil-fuels era.

All of this, I contend, provides a unique opportunity for a new era of co-operation between the Chinese and the North American auto industries in which others, like India, could also participate.

The main elements of such an agreement would be:

1. Encourage and facilitate China to make major investments in General Motors, Ford and Chrysler that would enable them to reconstruct and revitalize their companies on a basis that would ensure their survival and competitiveness, including the use of Chinese components. This would be done through investment by, or joint ventures with, leading Chinese companies.

2. The U.S. and Canadian markets would be opened on a selective basis to Chinese automobiles, which would be marketed through the General Motors, Ford and Chrysler dealer networks, restoring the viability and profitability of dealerships afflicted by the industry crisis.

3. The U.S. companies would have their established positions in the China market secured. They would obtain the right to expand their production and distribution in that market in co-operation with their Chinese partners.

4. The United States, Canada and China would agree to undertake and support a co-operative program of technological development in which their main companies would lead. These developments would be designed to produce a new generation of environmentally benign, people-friendly automobiles with particular focus on the development of alternatives to fossil fuels as well as alternative approaches to personal transportation

There is no question that the negotiation of such an agreement, involving the governments of the countries as well as their industry leaders, would be difficult and complex. But the massive economic and environmental benefits that would accrue to them, and indeed to the entire world, provide a powerful incentive to undertake it. The new administration in the United States and the demonstrated capacity of the Chinese government to manage the processes of fundamental change make this challenging opportunity unique.

The attempt to diminish religion

*Maurice Strong hinted at the overtly pagan agenda proposed for a future Earth Charter, when in his opening address to the Rio Conference delegates he said, “It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light.” [note: Alice Bailey, and Blavatsky before her, used these terms often. Their writings state that the ‘force of darkness’ are those who adhere to the ‘out-dated’ Judeo-Christian faith; those who continue along their ‘separative’ paths of the one true God. The ‘force of light’ (Lucifer), in their view, is the inclusive new age doctrine of a pagan pantheistic New World Religion. In the New Age of Aquarius there will be no room for the ‘force of darkness’ and ‘separativeness’.] “We must therefore transform our attitudes and adopt a renewed respect for the SUPERIOR LAWS OF DIVINE NATURE,” Strong finished with unanimous applause from the crowd.

*The GBA concluded on page 763 that “the root causes of the loss of biodiversity are embedded in the way societies use resources.” The main culprit? Judeo-Christian values. Chapter 12.2.3 states that- “This world view is characteristic of large scale societies, heavily dependent on resources brought from considerable distances. It is a world view that is characterized by the denial of sacred attributes in nature, a characteristic that became firmly established about 2000 years ago with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious traditions.

“Eastern cultures with religious traditions such as Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism did not depart as drastically from the perspective of humans as members of a community of beings including other living and non-living elements.”

*Strong is also involved in the U.N. Education Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Through his work in UNESCO, Strong promotes Gaia, the Earth God(dess), among the world’s youth. Strong is also the director of The Temple of Understanding in New York. He uses The Temple to encourage Americans concerned about the environment to replace Christianity with the worship of “mother earth.”

*Touted as one of the most well connected men on the planet, Strong has used his extensive web of high level international connections to advance the demise of national sovereignty, democracy and traditional religion and other elements he believes are causing an over-populous and environmentally-irresponsible humanity to endanger the planet.

For years, conservative intellectuals have derided those who voiced concerns about Strong’s Earth Charter and his plans for the demise of Christianity. However, earlier this year the Vatican warned against the “global ethics” which are the origin and core of the Earth Charter. In an article published in L’Osservatore Romano on February 11, Archbishop Javier Lozano Barragán, president of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Workers warned that the aim of the program was to supplant Christian values with a “global ethic.”

The Archbishop called the ‘global ethic’ movement an eco-religion which holds “sustainable development” as the highest good. He said it manifests itself “as a new spirituality that supplants all religions, because the latter have been unable to preserve the ecosystem.” In a word, this is “a new secular religion, a religion without God, or if you prefer, a new God that is the earth itself with the name GAIA,” he said. “The different religions existing in the world have been unable to generate this global ethic; therefore, they must be replaced by a new spirituality, which has as its end global well-being, within sustainable development,” explained Archbishop Barragán.

“FEMA Camps”??? Threats to Freedom of Speech?

But in Maurice Strong’s New World, NGOs will flag the new order about truth tellers: “The Commission (on Global Governance) believes that the U.N. should protect the “security of the people” inside the borders of sovereign nations, with or without the invitation of the national government. It proposes the expansion of an NGO “early warning” network to function through the Petitions Council to alert the U.N. to possible action.” (Italics CFP’s).

And Corruption is not lost on Maurice Strong either:

*At a World Bank Conference on sustainable development several years ago, when economist Joseph Stiglitz presented this concept, I asked him if he was basically “bringing a new company public or a stock to market” in creating this permit-trading system. He answered, “Yes,” and with a very large grin said, “And we will do very well!” Within the last year, a carbon-trading market was established in Chicago.

Interestingly enough, Maurice Strong is one of its directors. Furthermore, it has been suggested that if the price of energy went up, it would encourage people to change to more efficient technologies, thus reducing carbon in the air. Can you imagine the profit insiders and interested parties would make on another oil embargo, let alone the money they will make bartering the carbon trading permits?

*Along the way, Strong has also been caught up in a series of U.N. scandals and conflicts of interest. These extend from the notorious Oil-for-Food program to the latest furor over cash funneled via U.N. agencies to the rogue regime of North Korea, which involves, among other things, Strong’s creative use of a little-known, U.N.-chartered educational institution called the University for Peace. Above all, the tale of Maurice Strong illustrates the way in which the U.N., with its bureaucratic culture of secrecy, its diplomatic immunities, and its global reach, lends itself to manipulation by a small circle of those who best know its back corridors. …

*Instead of helping poor countries and poor people the machinations of Strong, Gore and the IPCC are reaping the rewards of their activities while the people pay the price. The people are paying in other ways as governments use IPCC reports to justify carbon taxes and other restrictive, punitive and expensive regulations. A huge industry has erupted as the UK newspaper the Telegraph reported. “Investing in climate change is proving to be profitable for governments, corporations, and investors from many sectors. Governments recent subsidies towards energy-efficient programs is bringing in newfound wealth for investors. In addition, the rising price of oil have been influential in pushing investments towards alternative energy sources. CEO’s are taking charge in ways that were unforeseen.” So, the very people and industries the environmentalists and socialists despise are doing what they do best – make money.

I have not seen Capitalism, A Love Story. I never intend to see it. I do know this. Public records show that for one of his vacation homes, Mr. Moore and his wife own a lakeside retreat in Northern Michigan. In the Tax Assessor’s opinion, the home and extra lot (wonder if he’ll sell that to Obama?) have an estimated value over $2,000,000. He should love capitalism. That’s one of who knows how many houses he owns. The tax bill gets mailed to a Park Ave, NY address. Per celebnetworth website http://www.celebnetworth.com/richest-celebrities/michael-moore-net-worth/ , his net worth is estimated at $25,000,000. Not bad for an anti-capitalist, huh? The money came from you.

Politicians, even democrats who embrace socialist policies, are reporting net worths in the many millions. Nancy Pelosi, for example, has the fourth highest net worth as of her last filing. While not detailed out (they are allowed VAST ranges), her net worth from her own accord is somewhere between $30,000,000 and $132,000,000.

Actors are the highest paid “skill-set” in America. Sean Penn is known for his anti-American, anti-capitalism stance. I find that extremely interesting. Here in America, living by the principles he says he hates so much, he was able to build a net worth estimated at $120,000,000 http://www.celebnetworth.com/richest-celebrities/sean-penn-net-worth/. Go figure. The money came from you.

George Soros, who was detailed here earlier this week ( http://wp.me/pxG9Z-9S ), and who uses his money to purposely overthrow our Constitution and our Republic toward socialist ends, has an estimated net worth at $111,000,000,000. (yeah billion). The money came from you and others like you around the world.

The United Nations, a leader in pushing a worldwide socialist agenda, received last year alone, from you, the hardworking American taxpayer, 22% of it’s annual budget. Their budget is estimated at $4 for every inhabitant of earth, so roughly, that means the US pays nearly $1 for every living human being, every year. That’s a lot of money. Especially when that does not included the $515,000,000 US spends every year to provide security for UN personnel and dignitaries. This money came from you, too.

I could go on and on. I think by now you get my point. All of these people, concerned Capitalism is bad for the world, should of thought of that before they reached into our pockets. Many of us lead paltry lives, you know, clinging to our guns and our bibles, clipping coupons, shopping at Wal-mart, just hoping to get by. They, on the other hand, rape us from every angle. They have taken our money, then sit high on their thrones mocking us. They are trying to take our religion, our guns, our voices and our freedom.

As Americans, fighting for the very promise of America, we need to ban together. No longer can we allow the labels, bequeathed to us by the political class in Washington, to hang around our necks like lead weights on a noose. That’s a tool they use to separate and confuse us. It’s a scam, like nearly everything else they throw at us. We are, first and foremost, Americans. We have let them divide us, but it is my hope we will come together before they conquer us. With the so-called “health care reform” legislation this week, and the promise of “clean energy” legislation next week (neither of which solve the issue they are named for) and other TERDs (Truly Enormously Ridiculous Deeds) they are throwing at us, time is running short.

I have laid out some ideas over the past week on how we can take back our country. For now, though, as detailed, we must fight the battles as they arise. Please, take ten minutes a week to compose an email. Then five minutes or less a day to email it to everyone in government who purports to represent your interest. We need you to call radio shows (both left and right leaning) to voice your dissatisfaction with pending legislation and pending agendas. Make at least one of those calls a week. If you can not do that (some of us are shy), please write a letter to your newspaper editor or attend and speak at a local governmental meeting. Speak clearly and loudly, no matter which way you choose to do so. Every single week. PLEASE. Remember – power goes to the PERCIEVED majority. That’s the mistake we have made. We allowed them to have the loudest voice. Wear a button, get a bumper sticker- what ever you have to do to claim your side.

Keep this in mind, too. Even though they want you to feel ashamed and alone. YOU ARE NOT ALONE. I can tell you, I am certain, there are exponentially more of us than there are of them. They are trained to speak loudly and mock. We need to learn from them. Estimates put their share of the population at 12%. Are we really going to mock our forefathers like they do, by letting a mere minority place us and our kids and grandkids in perpetual servitude to the US government or the UN?

I have included below, a few of the websites available in which you can track net worth data for yourself. There are many others, I am sure. A list of political money tracking sites, and many other watchdog tools, are available to the right of this column, in the Watchdog Tools category. Find out what these hypocrites are worth and let everyone know. We need to point out the hypocrisy they live by. Just as with the Smart Growth and Nature Conservancy agendas.. their motto is.. What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine, too. Simple greed in a new fangled package. Let’s ban together to show them it’s not. What’s ours is ours- the tragedy is now we have to fight to defend it.

They may be mocking us now, but I pray to my God (the one they don’t profess to believe in) we have the last laugh.

Congress members and top officials in the executive branch must file forms covering the preceding calendar year that list their assets and liabilities, their income (excluding their government salaries, oddly), asset transactions, gifts they received and more. They need not list property unless it produces income (so their primary residence is generally not listed), but they must include the source of their spouse’s income.

A few days ago, I came up on a posting on the Recycle Washington Website. The subject was Sustainable Development/ Agenda 21. I thought, yeah, those crazy sustainable development whack-jobs. They’re a problem, all right. Then I read the article. Even though I consider my self to be tuned in, I could not connect the dots. I thought we, as a country, were being bombarded by a multitude of different “crazies” coming at us from all sides. Now I realize I could not see the forest for the trees.

It is ONE BIG MONSTER coming at us, we’re in his hand.. and his hand is aiming for his mouth as we speak. This will take you just a little bit (an hour or so) to get through but it is imperative, if you care about your country, if you care about your future, if you care at all about freedom of choice or our constitution, that you make the time to get through the materials here. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

The best way to understand what Sustainable Development actually is can be found by discovering what is NOT sustainable.

According to the UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report, items for our everyday lives that are NOT sustainable include: Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paved and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment (capitalism, free markets).

Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Rio Earth Summit in 1992 said, “. .. Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”

Are you starting to see the pattern behind Cap and Trade, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and all of those commercials you’re forced to watch about the righteousness of Going Green? They are all part of the enforcement if Sustainable Development.

And one of the most destructive tools they use to force it on us is something called the “precautionary principle.” That means that any activities that might threaten human health or the environment should be stopped — even if no clear cause and effect relationship has been established — and even if the potential threat is largely theoretical.

That makes it easy for any activist group to issue warnings by news release or questionable report and have those warnings quickly turned into public policy — just in case.

Enter The Story of Stuff :

The Story of Stuff, produced by The Tides Foundation, has been shown in schools for two years in some cases. It comes along with a nifty worksheet, too. This video teaches your kids and grandkids that America is Evil, Capitalism is Evil, People who want stuff are Evil. Nearly everything in the video is a lie! I have included a segmented copy of the video complete with corrections to their lies. I recommend skipping the full video and going straight for the four part version to save time, but have included the full version shown to your children so you could watch it straight if you would like to.

You all know the quote: It takes 20 years to change society.- so just in case we succeed in blocking their agenda, they figured, they will start young indoctrinating our kids. That’s where our President got the idea with his recent ‘Dear Leader’ fiasco asking children (in the lesson plan we successfully blocked) How can you help your President to succeed? What can you do to help your President? (not your country, oh no)

If you would like more info on the Tides Foundation, here is a column I did on them last week: http://wp.me/pxG9Z-6h It’s scary stuff. The Tides foundation, linked to George Soros, Van Jones, Wade Rathke (ACORN founder), and so many more of the people leading the charge against YOU, the American citizen. Please, if you don’t know who they are, make their acquaintance. Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVgqyQm0Kzo

Back to the article on Sustainable Development/ Agenda 21

In short, it’s all about wealth redistribution. Your wealth into a green rat hole.

Now they have taken this and wrapped it all in a nice green blanket, scaring us with horror stories about the human destruction of the environment — and so we are now throwing our liberties on the bon fire like a good old fashioned book burning — all in the name of protecting the planet.

Free trade, social justice, consensus, global truth, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmental protection, development, diversity, visioning, open space, heritage, comprehensive planning, critical thinking, and community service are all part of our new language.

Rather than good management of resources, Sustainable Development has come to mean denied use and resources locked away from human hands. In short, it has become a code word for an entire economic and social agenda…

The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making Nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society. As such, every societal decision would first be questioned as to how it might effect the environment. To achieve this, Sustainablist policy focuses on three components; land use, education, and population control and reduction...

Sustainable Development’s Social Equity plank is based on a demand for “social justice.” …

Under the Sustainablist system, private property is an evil that is used simply to create wealth for a few. So too, is business ownership….

Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based on one overriding premise: that the wealth of the world was made at the expense of the poor. It dictates that, if the conditions of the poor are to be improved, wealth must first be taken from the rich. Consequently, Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based not on private enterprise but on public/private partnerships…

Sustainable Development policy is redefining free trade to mean centralized global trade “freely” crossing (or eliminating) national borders. It definitely does not mean people and companies trading freely with each other…

“Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore the natural way is the right way and human activities should be molded along nature’s rhythms.” from the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty presented at the 1992 UN Earth Summit. (hello, can anyone say Cass Sunstein??…are we ‘getting it’ yet?)…

Under Sustainable Development there can be no concern over individual rights — as we must all sacrifice for the sake of the environment. Individual human wants, needs, and desires are to be conformed to the views and dictates of social planners. The UN’s Commission on Global Governance said in its 1995 report: “Human activity… combined with unprecedented increases in human numbers… are impinging on the planet’s basic life support system. Action must be taken now to control the human activities that produce these risks”Under Sustainable Development there can be no limited government, as advocated by our Founding Fathers, because, we are told, the real or perceived environmental crisis is too great. Maurice Strong, Chairman of the 1992 UN Earth Summit said: “A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally-damaging consumption patterns. The shift will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.”…

The politically based environmental movement provides Sustainablists camouflage as they work to transform the American systems of government, justice, and economics. It is a masterful mixture of socialism (with its top down control of the tools of the economy) and fascism (where property is owned in name only — with no control). Sustainable Development is the worst of both the left and the right. It is not liberal, nor is it conservative. It is a new kind of tyranny that, if not stopped, will surely lead us to a new Dark Ages of pain and misery yet unknown to mankind.

While Americans clearly voted for change in the last election, I am not sure this is the change they meant. No matter, they are hoisting it up on us like a speeding bullet ! Change is almost here. All it will take is “Cap and Trade”, “Health Care Reform” and “Card Check” to pass. Please do a search on my site if you would like to know any more about these PENDING bills.

This started many years ago- and yes, it takes about 20 years for fundamental change to take place. While it started with the GATT agreement of 1947, it moved on from there. Slowly at first, but then under George Bush, Sr., then President Clinton, things started moving more quickly. NAFTA, WTO, First they made it possible for our manufacturing to move away. While we were all screaming ” Why isn’t our government securing our jobs? … Why are they making trade regulations so unfair to American workers?.. Why do corporations moving jobs overseas still get tax breaks”.. Well, all these years later, our worst fears are being realized. Now the only large scale manufacturing left is owned by the Government. The rest will soon follow or die.

Then, the started ebbing away at our 401K plans. Black Monday, October, 1987. Then over-valuation that caused the “Internet bubble”, and on from there to where we are now with much of the citizen’s wealth deteriorated to the point where many have to work years later than anticipated. But, that was not enough. We still had our homes. About twenty years ago, even after the Savings and Loan Crisis, they started making it easier for money to be lent. It was like giving candy to a baby. No longer did we all attempt to pay off our homes in 30 years. They made it easy for us to roll consumer debt into our mortgages. This went on for several years until it became more prevalent that most did not own their homes outright nor even hold the majority equity. Even though Appraisers were screaming about the abuses that were going on in the marketplace – no one would listen. I believe that is because it was part of the plan all along. Let’s not forget the “Progressive Agenda” started to rear it’s ugly head against our Constitution under Teddy Roosevelt. Eventually, in 1921, the Council for Foreign Relations was formed (see previous articles on my site) and real “progress” began. It was slow enough so we would not put the pieces together. Until Obama. They are so close now, they feel comfortable wearing their arrogance on their sleeve. To get a very good feel for how we got here, allow me to recommend another article by Henry Lamb. http://www.pushhamburger.com/morenews12.htm

Make NO mistake. This is a GLOBAL INITIATIVE. Much of the wealth lies here and so does the legacy of the Founding Fathers. We are a tough nut to crack, so they must use code, back door allegiances, and a bit of magic. There’s so much going on now it is hard for anyone that must work to pay attention. It is my personal belief that the whole “women’s rights” movement of the 1970’s was also a part of the plan. Why would they want mothers in schools watching them indoctrinate our children? Why would they want mothers home all day so they could pay attention to what is going on in the neighborhood or Washington DC. So, what better way than to say to women.. you are not equal, let’s make you equal. We were equal all along, it was they that treated us unequally. But instead of changing themselves (which is not what it was about), they FUNDAMENTALLY changed this country… with our help. They made us feel bad if we CHOSE to stay home with our kids, then they made it all but impossible. Another reason to allow debt to be built up. We would have to occupy ourselves with work outside the home, in addition to the work inside the home and the children. No time to go over every little spec of instructional material they were cramming down our children’s throat. No time to find out they were not teaching our children about the Constitution or the Founding Fathers any longer. No time to realize the UN and the Teachers Union were implementing a whole new agenda. (Give your kids and Grandkids a copy of The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen and ask them to read it )

Our Government now owns our banks, too, right? Well, actually the banks own the government. That is a whole set of novels unto itself. However, this all started with the implementation of the FED. A very good book on this subject is “The Creature from Jekyll Island” by G.Edward Griffin. This has been going on since the progressives took over the country in 1913, under Wilson, with the institution of the Fed giving the banks the ability to manipulate the money supply. Catapulted further under FDR, who gave up tying our money supply to the gold standard in 1933. Then paper money no longer became backed by silver under Johnson, meaning it was purely a fictional piece of paper we could pretend was actual money. This gave the FED power to print away with nothing to stop them from manipulating the money supply at their whim. Now today we see, they can print money hand over fist without answering to anyone. The only one paying any attention today is China. Why, because they see where first Bush and now Obama are leading us. By printing money without limit, by running up the deficit to levels which can never be paid back, by devaluing our currency and instituting hyper-inflation (coming soon to a neighborhood near you), they thereby initiate another CRISIS, causing us to have no other choice but to leave our dollar for a world wide currency. This is already being discussed by Europe and the UN. That will spell the end of our sovereignty. We are already funding the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Your tax dollars hard at work, just not for you.

The United Nations is heavily involved and is leading the crunch against America. Most of their current agenda surrounds Global Governance, or put another way – death to American Sovereignty. I would like to direct your attention to a small piece of that – The Marrakech Process- by reading The Marrakech Memorandum. This was discussed in the article I mentioned earlier at RecycleWashington.com . You can find out more about it’s TEN YEAR PLAN to global governance at their website: http://esa.un.org/marrakechprocess/

So, what could possibly get in their way? Well, citizens, of course. That’s why they had to poke fun of the Townhallers and the Tea Party participants. Why they GROSSLY underestimated attendance at the March on Washington DC a few weeks ago. Why the media can not report it. Why no real journalist can talk about it (even OReilly). Most of the media belongs to the Council on Foreign Relations, by the way. It’s all part of the gig and the media is in on it. That’s why they have worked for years on fine tuning the Martial Law regulations, and, not to sound crazy, but why they are currently hiring internment specialists (really- I saw the ad). Not all the politicians are in on it, but many are. Long term Senators especially. That is why they have to go! The sooner the better! We MUST have term limits, too! NOW!

What else stands in their way? Oh, yeah, THE INTERNET! TALK RADIO! That is why the FCC is attempting an agenda currently to control both. An agenda already in progress. Do NOT let it happen. Pay attention. If they get us there, we’re done. Do not let anything pass in Congress. NOTHING. They are leaving everything open to interpretation, and the interpreter is Cass Sunstein. You may wish to make his acquaintance as well (search prior articles on my site).

While space will not allow every detail, perhaps I have connected enough of the dots for your to see the big picture. All of the stuff that does not make sense, all the trashing of our Constitution, all of the freaks being appointed to high positions… it’s all for the end game. The end game is doing away with any meaningful sovereignty for the US. We are now at a crossroads. If you condone the New World Order/ One World Order thing that puts the crackpots at the UN in charge of you and all you’ll ever be – do nothing. If this seems like a nightmare to you, then you need to get involved NOW! Right NOW! They almost have it. I beg you. Do NOT let them win.

I have recently posted lists of tools you can use to root out the bad guys (located in the Citizen Tools category on right). The trick is to follow the money and watch the regulations. Please give up a few nicities, like watching television a few hours a week or reading that fiction novel. We need all hands on deck. We have been asleep so long they almost have it in the bag. We need to make up for lost time. We need to mobilize and fight back NOW. They are way ahead of us. They have armies and systems in place. Our only saving grace is there are, I believe, more of us than them. This reminds me of a time in our country’s history. How ironic.

‘Put nothing in writing,’ Browner told auto execs on secret White House CAFE talks; Sensenbrenner wants investigation by Mark Tapscott
Carol Browner, former Clinton administration EPA head and current Obama White House climate czar, instructed auto industry execs “to put nothing in writing, ever” regarding secret negotiations she orchestrated regarding a deal to increase federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-WI, is demanding a congressional investigation of Browner’s conduct in the CAFE talks, saying in a letter to Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA, that Browner “intended to leave little or no documentation of the deliberations that lead to stringent new CAFE standards.” Federal law requires officials to preserve documents concerning significant policy decisions, so instructing participants in a policy negotation concerning a major federal policy change could be viewed as a criminal act. Sensenbrenner also wants a congressional investigation of why a global warming study by Alan Carlin, an EPA economist who is a career civil servant, was suppressed by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and other senior agency officials. The study warned of seriously damaging economic consequences for small businesses if the agency moved to regulate CO2 gases as illegal emissions under the Clean Air Act. The CO2 gases, which are also produced by humans and other air-breathing creatures when they exhale, are viewed by global warming activists as contributing to the trapping of heat in the atmosphere when carbon-based fuels like oil and coal are burned.

Electric Cars May Shift Our Foriegn Dependence from One Dictator To Another from IBDhttp://www.ibdeditori…
The GAO report says a plug-in compact car, if recharged at an outlet drawing its power from coal, provides a carbon dioxide savings of only 4% to 5%… Aside from forcing us into less-safe downsized vehicles that increased highway fatalities, the promise of more miles per gallon caused people to drive more miles. The promised energy independence never materialized in the 70’s as we imported more foreign oil than ever before. Okay, so how about a zero-emission source of electricity — nuclear power? The administration has done little to promote it and recently killed the safest place on the planet to store what is erroneously called nuclear waste — at the nuclear repository that was being built at Yucca Mountain, Nev. This “waste” is in the form of spent fuel rods the French and others have safely stored and reprocessed. These rods still contain most of their original energy and reprocessing them makes nuclear power renewable as well as pollution-free. The French get 80% of their electricity from nukes. There are the hazards of the cars themselves, to drivers, passengers and first responders. Then there’s a whole new problem of disposing of a new generation of batteries using lithium. As for the lithium, Bolivia, under the thumb of its leftist leader Evo Morales, has about half the world’s proven reserves. “The United States has supplies of lithium, but if demand for lithium exceeded domestic supplies,” warns the GAO, “the U.S. could substitute reliance on one foreign source (oil) for another (lithium).”

Lindsay Grahm May Support Sotomayor – Drop him an email at http://lgraham.senate… and tell him he is a traitor!

‘The only way she can get derailed is if she performs poorly next week,” acknowledged Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a Senate Judiciary Committee member. He said he was still undecided, but added, “I honestly think I could vote for her.” (Ed note- so apparently reverse discrimination and activist judges are no problem for Lindsay Graham)

…Senate Democrats have another vote for the U.N.’s Law of Sea Treaty, and there are strong indications that they intend to bring this controversial document up for a vote within days or weeks. Those who favor the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) believe that U.S. security lies in passing a treaty and hiring more lawyers to defend America before an international tribunal, rather than building more ships for the Navy and Coast Guard. The anticipated vote on the treaty follows a strong recent push for ratification from the Council on Foreign Relations and newspaper ads in favor of the treaty from the Pew Charitable Trusts, a $5 billion non-profit entity. Plus, the Obama State Dept. sent a document to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on May 11 that declared UNCLOS to be a top priority for the administration. In fact, Obama’s submission to the Foreign Relations Committee names 17 treaties that he wants ratified. So rather than build more ships, we will depend on a piece of paper from the U.N. to safeguard U.S. national security.

..The United States of America has officially reached the moment in history when the centralized power vested in 546 career politicians no longer serves the best interests of more than 300 million legal American citizens. The federal government no longer exists at the pleasure of the states and their people, but rather as a dysfunctional global dictatorship, an oligarchy of 546 career political thugs ruling with an iron fist over 300 million dissenting subjects. The Founding Fathers knew that this day would come and they prepared accordingly. “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, [life, liberty and the individual freedom to define and pursue happiness] it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government” – Declaration of Independence. The real power of the people is not in their vote or even the money they send politicians at election time. It’s in their ability to use their local state legislators to force the Fed back into compliance with the contract between the states, the Constitution… If you want your country back, you will have to take it back. (Ed note.. 39 states, including Michigan now have sovereignty legislation pending)

MonCrief is a former employee of ACORN and Project Vote affiliate who offered testimony last year in Harrisburg, Pa. as part of an election law suit filed against them. “I’ve always been an outsider in my party because I ask a lot of questions and I didn’t like some of the answers I’ve been getting,” she said. “The problem I have with Democrats is that they promise you the world but then they don’t deliver. I identify now with conservative ideas because the answer is not social welfare. The answer instead comes from being less dependent on the government and keeping families together.” Food stamp and housing assistance programs, for instance, do not provide people with an incentive to get married and to keep husbands and wives together, she said.

What are you doing to save freedom? Post it here:http://www.wearesavin…Barney Frank: Let’s spend TARP profits before taxpayers can get them by Byron York at the Washington Examinerhttp://www.washington…
The chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has come up with a proposal to spend any TARP profits before they can be returned to the taxpayers. Frank introduced the “TARP for Main Street Act,” a bill that would take profits from the program and immediately redirect them toward housing proposals favored by Frank and some fellow Democrats. Last month, the General Accountability Office (GAO) reported that, through June 12, 2009, the government had received $6.2 billion in dividend payments. The original TARP legislation required that money made from the program “shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.” Frank, however, wants to spend the money before it can be used to pay down anything…..

ACORN’s “Muscle for Money” does the bidding of SEIU By Kevin Mooney at the Washington Examinerhttp://www.washington…
Corporate and political officials who defy workplace and community organizers risk being made objects of scorn by bright red-clad protestors in public and private, courtesy of an activist union and its close allies in the nation’s most controversial liberal non-profit advocacy group. It’s officially called the “Muscle for Money” program within the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) where it was started, and unofficially by the same name among activists of Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN). Muscle for Money includes multiple techniques for creating highly aggressive, organized efforts both to pressure businesses and officials to support the activists’ agenda or to discredit and intimidate opponents of their agenda, according to present and former ACORN members.

Obama Adviser Says U.S. Should Mull Second Stimulus By Shamim Adam at Bloomberghttp://www.bloomberg….
July 7 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. should consider drafting a second stimulus package focusing on infrastructure projects because the $787 billion approved in February was “a bit too small,” said Laura Tyson, an outside adviser to President.

The Demise of Newspapers is a Relative Observation by Matt Welch at Reason (Re:RUMOR”S OF ANOTHER BAILOUT RECIPIENT)http://reason.com/blo…
In the year of their widely reported death, American newspapers were still making money like oil companies (averaging 12-15%). Which is a relevant observation to consider before we re-think the First Amendment, re-write copyright law to favor newspapers over citizens, dole out corporate subsidies and targeted tax breaks, launch a journalisim stimulus, mimic the European model, sic the FTC on the problem, let John Kerry anywhere near the levers of legislation, or any of the scores of other damn-fool ideas we’ve seen floated this year alone. Follow up article at The Minority Reporthttp://tinyurl.com/nl…
When they, as gatekeepers to the news, find themselves becoming irrelevant, the natural inclination of their kind is to look to government to reinstate their relevance. They see the Fifth Estate as a co-equal branch of the government — and a government paycheck would cement that perception in the minds of the public. That would not be a good thing for our Republic, or for those who still hold some reverence for the United States Constitution.

Judicial Sleight of Hand By Brittany Fortier of AIMhttp://www.aim.org/br…
Judge David Hamilton of the Southern District of Indiana, who has been nominated by the Obama administration to serve on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, proposes to bring an even more activist approach to the federal judiciary. For example, in A Woman’s Choice v. Newman, Hamilton issued an injunction against an Indiana law requiring abortion clinics to give women information about alternatives to abortion and requiring an 18-hour waiting period before obtaining an abortion, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., points out. He called Hamilton’s ruling “questionable,” while the Seventh Circuit characterized Hamilton’s ruling as “an abuse of discretion.” In Hinrichs v. Bosma, in which the Judge enjoined the Chaplain of Indiana’s House of Representatives from invoking the name of Jesus Christ during prayers offered at official proceedings but later decreed that invoking the name of Allah was nonsectarian, Sen. Inhofe added. Inhofe described this ruling as “extremely naive and dangerous.” According to the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), “Despite an American Bar Association (ABA) rating of ‘not qualified,’ Hamilton was confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana by the Senate on October 7, 1994.” ACLJ notes that the ABA changed their rating of Hamilton to “well qualified” more recently when Hamilton was nominated to the Seventh Circuit.

Gallup sees more Americans moving right By Mark Tapscott at Washington Examinerhttp://tinyurl.com/lx…
Gallup is out today with a new survey showing more Americans are moving to the Right politically than to the Left, including people in all three major groups, Republicans, Independents and Democrats. “Despite the results of the 2008 presidential election, Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent years have become more conservative rather than more liberal, 39% to 18%, with 42% saying they have not changed. While independents and Democrats most often say their views haven’t changed, more members of all three major partisan groups indicate that their views have shifted to the right rather than to the left, ” the polling organization said in a special report released earlier today.The latest Gallup results also come soon after the organization reported that 40 percent of Americans now identify themselves as conservatives, the highest level since 2004. In a masterful piece of understatement, the unnamed author of the Gallup announcement of its specia report results offered this observation:The latest data also strongly suggest not only that the election results of 2006 and 2008 should be read as a stunning rejection of current Republican office-holders and spokesmen, but also that Democrats are wrong to read into those results a mandate for liberal change.

States, Employers Advance with E-Verify While Feds Continue to Obstruct Program at Fair UShttp://www.fairus.org…
While states and employers steadily increase their use of E-Verify — the federal program that allows employers to verify the work eligibility of their new hires — the Obama Administration and congressional leadership appear to be undermining the popular and effective program.

Watchdog Tools

History Repeats Itself

"Their final objective toward which all their deciet is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection" - Henry A. Wallace, US VP 1941-45

Up until a few years ago, I was happy filling my life with personal issues of family, work, home. Then, I began to notice our once great country is run by a government which has no respect for the Constitution and no respect for us, it's citizens. I realize now it is up to folks like me to change this. I am only one person, but through this blog it is my hope to point out to ordinary Americans how our rights, our liberty, is being threatened. My belief is by shining a bright light, we as a people can begin to peacefully remove the power hungry, self serving autocrats running our government. This is not about one party or another. This is about the very foundation our country was built on. Our foundation is crumbling. Please help me shore it up! Do not be afraid to Speak Out Loudly! Of the people, by the people, for the people. That is how we will get our country back! Please visit our sister site www.WatchdogCentral.org to check up on your government officials - national, state and local.